















































































































































































































































































* 0 


0 S * * r 




f c* V , 

'" % ,/ * 

.* .A • 

y * S S V* v | B <V ' 0 * K * f c O N C r 

^ * l^/Y?Pp-, 2 . -P V. -X "" 





- 7 -> ^ 

iV 




® V <0 

• /. * V. /^\\y 

° V* ^ ® V <« ' A * A’ 

0 4 K * * A 

./ .‘ 




*/ A ^ r 

% ^ & * 

- %$ - 

* <&**+ \ _ , 

-P ' >l ‘r, ' 1 * * ' S 0 V v 1 * < f ' 4 * 

0 0 ?/rf?? 2 _ ' + '’r. .>1 

' ’■'*■ V° 

♦—W- ,V Vo'>;.'*>>* ’ T ° V>; *:A 

'J 5 -. .- <*■ 0 y\~ ' J\ t '\n< An ^ < 



■ 4 > 

M T x'. If N v 

'♦ <v V x . A , 

® "V ,V X 

* c. y^> * 

C> o 

** %y&rs ,*♦ * *.;« B ;■* A 

0 p k A^ 0 n C . ^/- ' ■* 4 s S A <, V ' * p '<4 c 0 N c * . T o 

aw < ^ % <? rS 3 . v -* ^ jo * 



<P 'ty/jljljf ■> . Pv’ ■“-, ' ^' M -A X AN 3 ' J . s ’ 0 

s.. r ;%■ ■•.. ■• V ^. 0; %: ‘-'*' v > ■:; V 

X \ ^ *^Nj^ * • < W* - 

^ tf 5 >. •.'«■»'.* ^ ^ 


\ * 0 




/ 



- ,<> <C^ 

* V J ,p. » 

» ^ o v ^ ■»' a , * & *, 

* 0 +K* A K c ^ >V , N ^ y ° ^ V *»«* ^b 4 ** S 

A . c ' °o c? V s \,/r?^ 1 V V ^ <" ^ 

* v # 7 V/'ys 2 -* + A' 

« O 0 x * ^ r* 




\0 ^ 



*o 0 

n 









f c> 

* 'ft. 



1 

o 

21 

^ ^ v ' 

>< 

o 

z 

o 

> % 

o 




V' ‘ °' N * * X' ”' ; * ,%' ° * 1 V A * ° 

< * „ ., */FmZ2> * ^ 4$ * ^ 


^ V 

O 0 


, v v. Vv\ .. ~<L.'*7r;sjr * 

% % 

* -A' 

-c ^ ^ 

o v0O x , * 

’* A o° % *■ r? 7 .■' ,# %"* ^r„ >*,o° % *■,, 

.o'- .To, ’% •" v> s'-.* > ■ - .< 3 * *’>*•, -%> " 


^ 
iV O 


* > 




* '. s O Q .J * s , \ 0 - 0? 1 ' i- 

*X <w r ^ *v» * <* 


// ^ 
✓ 




V'j 
A' </> 


A^- 


OB 

* ’*> 

> A o X/ ^ 

A \ . 0 K 

# ^ ^ o 



* ^’r jb 

-, tp v 


.V 




o' 5 * ,0 J Sb *■ 

N J’ *'*»- ^ 


w s ov - 4 ^ ^ 4 ' v- ' -c 

"A-^%'"' / .‘ tr * X ' * * "/\ • 1 

u * JPmfe 2, * ->0. a\ «» c^x\^>i^L * ^ . ’ * j@/5 

,\ ? MM&rOr, s- >* = *-~,ot 'ZSI 


W 


X 0o x. 



’ ‘ v N# * ’ N ° ’>°\ < *»,% 


#' % \ 

<• y 0 * X ^ \A 5 ^TVs S ’ ,0 V 

^ '■& J*' t o N 0 * *0 r 0 k v * v,fi * 

L \ s. -svV.AV^ ✓ v 


\ 0o x. 




^ ° • Xo‘ ^" '>!'s 'VV-> 

*. ^ AV * ^SM^» . •* 

° V \V « 

, ,^ Vj a. »■ .^ y -v -. 

•A ^ i, <,” y o.i'*\< X K c ' ’ ^P' - 

^ f 0 N C , ^ * V I 8 # ^ A\ <, 0 N c * ^o • „cr * 

* c * A ^ C' yV -A^- -* ^ .•'C 1 * ^ ^ ^ 


N 0 y 0 \'”»vv' 

o '<P n 
; z ^ 

V <p 





O yT*v 



✓ 

t/* 


•>* V 



r-' k 4 V 



^0' \ 


■^L.i 














I 


















I 


















+ 


♦ 
















I* 



































I 


► < 








» 

















» 


































♦ 















I 



t 





* 













♦ 
































MARY STUART 































, 

■ 



















MARY STUART 


HER GUILT OR INNOCENCE 


AN INQUIRY INTO 

THE SECRET HISTORY OF HER TIMES 


y 

By ALEXANDER M'NEEL-CAIRD 


SECOND EDITION 
WITH REPLY TO MR. FROUDE 


EDINBURGH 



ADAM AND CHARLES BLACK 


1866 



Printed by R. CLARK, Edinburgh. 


PREFACE. 


These pages were composed in the shape of lectures 
to a provincial audience, at whose desire they are 
now published. Though revised, they retain many 
defects, incident to their origin, which require this 
explanation and apology. 




TABLE OF CONTENTS. 


Page 

Preface to Second Edition, with Reply to Mr Froude rain 


CHAPTER I. 

General View of Mary Stuart’s Life and Misfortunes— 
Statement of the Historical Problem which they involve . . 1 

CHAPTER II. 

Struggle between France and England for Influence in Scotland— 
Intrigues for Mary’s Hand—The Regent Hamilton’s Tergiver¬ 
sations—The Contest between the Houses of Hamilton and 
Lennox —Lennox forfeited for Treason, and Banished—Mary’s 
Education in France—Her Marriage at sixteen to the Dauphin 
—Naturalisation of Scotchmen in France—Deeds affecting the 
Crown fraudulently obtained from the young Queen before her 
Marriage—The Perils arising from these, and how they were 
escaped —John Knox —His Dislike of Female Sovereigns— 

His “Blast against the Regiment of Women ” ... 5 


CHAPTER III. 

Mary Stuart becomes Queen of France —Continued Struggle of 
Foreign Influence in Scotland—War of Creeds—Alarming In¬ 
surrection of 1559—Encouraged by Queen Elizabeth —Her 
Jealousy of Mary’s Claims on the Crown of England—Eliza¬ 
beth’s Title to that Crown Parliamentary, Mary’s founded on 
» Legitimacy— Lord James Stuart, Prior of St. Andrews (Mary’s 



CONTENTS. 


Page 


viii 


Illegitimate Brother), leads the Insurrection against her in 
Scotland—His Schemes for usurping the Government coun¬ 
tenanced by Elizabeth—Secret Interview between Knox and 
Croft—Hamilton again changes sides, and joins the Insurgents 
—His Motives—How this disconcerted the Scheme in favour 
of Lord James—Elizabeth secretly sends aid—Her Convoy of 
Treasure intercepted by Bothwell —Elizabeth dissembles— 
Huntly induced by the Lord James to join the Insurgents— 

The Lord James’s Treachery—Elizabeth at last openly sends 
an Army and establishes a Blockade of the Firth of Forth— 
Siege of Leith —It is taken— Treaty of Leith —Its Ambi¬ 
guity—It was never Ratified—Scottish Parliament met— 
Abolished Pope’s Jurisdiction and established the Confession 
of Faith —These Acts not formally assented to by the Crown, 
but acquiesced in by Mary and enforced by Law—Prohibi¬ 
tion by Parliament of the Roman Catholic Religion under Pain 
of Confiscation, Banishment, and Death—Mary declares for 
Freedom of Opinion—Death of her Husband the King of 
France, by which she loses that Crown, and the jealousies of 
the Scotch of French influence come to an end ... 9 


CHAPTER IV. 

The Lord James goes to France to confer with his Sister, the young 
Queen—Persuades her that Huntly was a chief Conspirator 
against her, and obtains for himself her full Commission and 
Authority—Mary’s Application to Elizabeth for Safe-conduct 
that she might return to Scotland—Secret Conference of the 
Lord James, Morton,, and Lethington, with the English 
Ambassador—Elizabeth refuses the Safe-conduct—Mary sails 
without it, and arrives safe in Scotland—Elizabeth congratu¬ 
lates her—Disturbances at Holyrood when Queen attempted 
to have Mass in her Private Chapel—Her Proclamation giving 
Assurance that Protestant Order of Religion should not be 
Disturbed—The Lord James and Mary’s chief Counsellors in 
the Secret Pay of Elizabeth—He proceeds to carry out his 
Designs against Huntly, forces him into Rebellion, ruins him, 
confiscates his Estates, and from the spoils obtains the Earl¬ 
dom of Murray .15 


\ 


CONTENTS. 


IX 


CHAPTER V. 

Page 

Holders of Catholic Benefices contribute a Third of their Revenues 
to the Crown and the Protestant Ministers—Pithy Opinions 
expressed of the Arrangement by Knox and Lethington— 
Murray’s singular “ Act of Oblivion,” designed to perpetuate 
his Power—Knox quarrels with Murray and exposes his Mo¬ 
tives—Murray’s Character according to Froude, Knox, and 
Melville—Pungent Lines on Lethington’s Crooked Policy— 
Mary pleads with Knox for Toleration to the Catholics—He 
refuses—The Romish Prelates and others Punished by Im¬ 
prisonment for celebrating the Mass—Murray seeks to have 
himself Legitimated . . . . . . . .20 


CHAPTER VI. 

Contemporary Opinions of Mary Stuart’s Character— Throkmor- 
ton’s Account of her— Randolph’s—Scrope’s—Knollys’— 
Lethington’s—Murray’s Council—Sir James Melville’s —The 
Earl of Shrewsbury’s —Her Writings—Her confidential 
Correspondence—Her Library included the Writings of the 
great Reformers . .... 


CHAPTER VII. 

Mary’s numerous Suitors—Elizabeth’s alarm—Her apprehensions 
of the Catholic Party in England, and her fear that Mary might 
strengthen herself by marrying a Continental Prince—Mary’s 
willingness + o be advised by her if secured in the English Suc¬ 
cession—Elizabeth’s enigmatic conduct on the subject—She 
proposes her own favourite, the Earl of Leicester, as a 
Suitor for Mary—The suspicious Death of Leicester’s Wife— 
Elizabeth’s puzzling conduct—Cecil writes of " these tickle 
matters”—Mary regards the proposal as ridiculous, but re- 
) ceives it with ostensible respect—Lennox permitted to return 
from Banishment—He is followed by his son, Lord Darnley, 
who becomes one of Mary’s Suitors, and is favourably received 


X 


CONTENTS. 


Page 


—He attaches David Riccio to liis Views—Riccio’s previous 
Position—Suspected to be an Emissary of the Pope—Riccio 
promotes a Match between Mary and Darnley on Political 
Grounds—Elizabeth Protests—Murray lays down rules for 
the Queen’s guidance as to her Marriage—Elizabeth requires 
the Return of Darnley and Lennox to England under Pain of 
Confiscation—They disobey—Elizabeth sends Lady Lennox to 
the Tower—Murray’s Reasons for opposing the Marriage— 

His Grants of Crown Lands revocable —Darnley’s incau¬ 
tious remarks on this subject—Morton, Lethington, and 
others had similar Grants of Crown Lands—They raise the 
cry of the Kirk in Danger . . . . . . .28 


CHAPTER VIII. 

Darnley’s strange conduct—Demands the Crown-Matrimonial, and 
attempts to extort it by refusing to complete the Marriage in 
public—Inexplicable at the time—Unpublished Letter by 
Randolph to Elizabeth disclosing that Mary and Darnley had 
been privately Married—He is proclaimed King, and the Mar¬ 
riage is celebrated publicly—He goes to hear Knox preach— 
Knox preaches against the Rule of Women and Boys—The 
King summons him before the Council, and orders the Provost 
of Edinburgh to be deposed—A Fix between Knox and the 
King—Mary solves the Difficulty—The King and a Poacher— 

He prohibits the use of Fowling-pieces—Elizabeth stirs up a 
new Insurrection in Scotland—Murray leads it—His Plot to 
seize Darnley and imprison Mary—Her Escape—Plot against 
Darnley’s life—Letters on this subject by Randolph to Cecil 
and Leicester—Morton and Lethington secretly in the Con¬ 
spiracy with Murray—Mary recalls Bothwell from Banishment, 
and drives the Rebels into England—Randolph detected in 
conveying aid to them—Elizabeth obtains from Murray a col¬ 
lusive acknowledgment on his knees that she had not encouraged 
him—Orders him to be gone for a Traitor, and writes Mary dis¬ 
claiming all connection with him . . . . .35 


CONTENTS. 


xi 


CHAPTER IX. 

Page 

Randolph’s Position in consequence of Elizabeth’s Disavowal— 

He is thwarted and out-manoeuvred by Riccio, and seeks to 
renew the Conspiracy—Mary and her Husband—Riccio’s 
Influence with Catholic Party strengthened by the success of 
his policy—King of France sends Darnley the Order of St. 
Michael—The Heralds of opinion that he could not display 
the Royal Arms on his Investiture—He renews his demand 
for Matrimonial Crown—Mary’s Letter to the Pope—Compact 
for putting down Heresy—Her ineffectual Attempts to per¬ 
suade Bothwell and others to join her at Mass—Riccio ad¬ 
vises a Pardon to the House of Hamilton for accession to 
Murray’s Rebellion—Lennox offended by it, owing to the 
hereditary enmity of their Houses—Darnley’s Misconduct— 
Murray at Newcastle and in Distress—Rebels dissatisfied with 
the Hamiltons being detached from them—Randolph and 
Lennox bring Darnley into the Combination— Archibald 
Douglas Active—Morton and Lethington secretly in accord 
with them—Riccio seizes a man who carried gold from Ran¬ 
dolph to Murray—Randolph writes to the Earl of Leicester 
for Elizabeth’s private eye that Riccio is to have his throat 
cut—Riccio warned, but laughs at the danger—Exchange of 
written Agreements for Riccio’s Death—Murray’s Pardon and 
Restoration, and securing to Darnley the Matrimonial Crown 
and Succession to the Throne if Mary should die childless— 
Randolph’s communication of the Plot, and agreements to Se¬ 
cretary Cecil and to Queen Elizabeth—The subsequent Murder 
of Riccio—The Queen is Threatened and Imprisoned—Darn- 
ley’s position as Heir after Mary of both Crowns—Murray, as 
arranged, reaches Edinburgh after the Murder, and weeps with 
the Queen in her distress—Discussion whether she should be 
Executed or Imprisoned for Life—The Law denouncing Death 
for the Mass would have been the excuse—Darnley Dissolves 
Parliament—Mary in a private conference succeeds in opening 
his eyes—He joins her in countermining the Conspirators— 
They Escape secretly from the Palace, and take refuge in the 
Castle of Dunbar—Bothwell and Huntly collect forces— 


Xll 


CONTENTS. 


The Queen advances on Edinburgh, and the Conspirators flee 
—Murray recommends the Perpetrators to Elizabeth’s favour 
—Important Passage on this subject omitted by Dr. Robertson 
in an original letter which he quotes in his History —Eliza¬ 
beth’s conduct—Friar Black murdered on the same night with 
• Riccio—King now denies his share in the Conspiracy, and 
puts out a Proclamation repudiating the Conspirators—Mur¬ 
ray, finding that Darnley had concealed his Bond, applies 
to Mary for Pardon, which she grants, under the exception of 
acts directed against her own Person—The Conspiracy goes on, 
though the Actors have exchanged places—Darnley’s Betrayal 
had ruined their cause for the time, but procures him their 
undying hatred—Morton and Eighty of them now in Banish¬ 
ment—The grand Catastrophe foreshadowed 


CHAPTER X. 

State of the Country, and of Parties on Riccio’s death—Was Knox 
privy to the Scheme ?—Week of Fasting before Riccio’s assassi¬ 
nation—Lethington’s Policy—Cecil’s—Murray’s Views—Their 
position in regard to Darnley—Darnley’s in regard to the 
Crown ......... 


CHAPTER XI. 

Murray joins in a Resolution to punish sharply all who counselled 
Riccio’s death—How this Resolution was defeated—Both well’s 
services and position—His previous History—His scheme before 
Darnley’s Marriage to carry off the Queen—His offensive lan¬ 
guage as to both Queens—His Banishment, and Mary’s dis¬ 
pleasure with him—Murray’s Insurrection renders his Recall 
necessary—Bothwell is married a few days before Riccio’s 
death to the Queen’s cousin—Position of Darnley and his 
Father—Mary’s forbearance—His secret Bond for Riccio’s 
murder exhibited to her—She ignores it—He chafes under 
Murray’s presence, but is afraid to produce his Bond—Murray 
keeps his ground—Mary gives birth to a Son, James I.— 
Elizabeth’s reception of the news ..... 


CONTENTS. 


CHAPTER XII. 

. Page 

Darnley s threats against Murray—The Queen makes peace between 

them—The Birth of James suggests another mode of carrying 
out the Conspiracy against Mary—Kapid sequence of events— 
Elizabeth consents to be the Child’s Godmother—Lethington’s 
Restoration—Darnley renews his demand for Crown-Matri¬ 
monial—State of Parties made such a measure impossible— 
Proclamation of Border Courts—Darnley refuses to accompany 
the Queen—His obstinacy—Speaks of leaving the Country— 
Conference of King and Queen before Privy Council and 
French Ambassador—He acknowledges he has no ground of 
complaint—Reports of the Privy Council and French Ambas¬ 
sador—(See also Appendix No. XVI., Parts 1 and 2) . 77 

CHAPTER XIII. 

Darnley’s scheme to enforce his demand for Matrimonial Crown— 

He still refuses to join the Queen in the Border Courts—She 
goes to Jedburgh and holds them without his support—Great 
assemblage there to meet the Queen—Preparations threatened 
with ridicule—Criminals had all escaped—Bothwell danger¬ 
ously wounded in attempting, as Lord-Lieutenant, to seize 
them—Mary goes to Hermitage to consult him—Misrepresen¬ 
tation of this visit in Buchanan’s Detection — Buchanan’s 
pension from the English Court—(See Appendix No. t XVIII.) 84 

CHAPTER XIV. 

Mary’s dangerous illness at Jedburgh—“ The root of it is the King ” 

—His tardy visit—She affects to be indifferent—He leaves 
immediately—She makes her Will—The terms in which she 
refers to her Husband in it (see Appendix No. XXI.)—Proposal 
by Murray and others that she should Divorce him—She re¬ 
fuses (see Appendix No. XIX.) —The Prince’s Baptism— 
Affront designed by Elizabeth to Darnley—He consequently 
absents himself from the Ceremony—Misrepresentations of 
Mary’s Libellers—Bothwell’s refusal to enter the Chapel— 


CONTENTS. 

Page 

Mary urged by Elizabeth, the King of France, and her whole 
Council, to grant an Amnesty to Morton and his Associates— 

She complies, excepting Carr of Faudonside—Darnley offended 
by their Pardon, and again leaves the Court—His deportment 
incurably bad—He is seized with small-pox . . .88 


CHAPTER XV. 

Mary’s hopes from Elizabeth’s countenance at James’s Baptism— 
Elizabeth’s object—Renewal of her old Policy—English Par¬ 
liament urgent for Settlement of Succession—Elizabeth irri¬ 
tated—Mary’s health broken—Her credit in England—Eng¬ 
lish Peers unanimously for her—French Ambassador’s Report 
of her distresses and conduct—Agitating rumours—Murray 
proposes to proceed against Darnley for Treason—Queen re¬ 
fuses—Still ill of small-pox—She goes to him in Glasgow— 

He is penitent, and they are reconciled—Grievous mistake of 
Froude and the younger Tytler—Queen’s meeting with Crawford 
—Darnley accompanies her to Edinburgh—She attends him in 
his illness—The fears of his Enemies roused by his Restoration 
—The Position of the Holders of Crown Lands . . .93 


CHAPTER XYI. 

Warning given to Darnley by the Lord Robert Stuart—Queen 
orders immediate inquiry—Lord Robert denies what he had 
said—Quarrel between him and Darnley—Mary’s beautiful 
Letter to her Husband on this occasion—Afterwards used as 
a chief instrument of her ruin—Clernault’s Report of their 
good understanding—Warning sent to her by the Ambassador 
of Spain through her Ambassador at Paris—Arrives a few 
hours too late . . . . . . . . .104 


CHAPTER XVII. 

Explosion at the Kirk of Field, and the King’s Murder— Cler¬ 
nault’s Report (inedited)—Queen’s offer of reward—Placards 


CONTENTS. 


xv 


Page 

and cries at night—Morton and Archibald Douglas chief 
Murderers—Morton’s Conviction fourteen years afterwards— 
Queen Elizabeth’s frantic efforts to prevent his Trial—Leicester’s 
Letter (inedited) hinting at Assassination of Darnley’s son, King 
Janies, to save Morton—Morton’s Execution—His partial Con¬ 
fession—Acknowledgments implied in Correspondence between 
Morton and Lethington when they quarrelled—Partial Con¬ 
fession of Archibald Douglas . . . . . 109 


CHAPTER XVIII. 

Murray’s acknowledgment of a Bond between him and Bothwell, 
Huntly, and Argyle—Confessions of the Laird of Ormiston, 
and of Bothwell’s and Archibald Douglas’s Servants—King 
Strangled before the Explosion—Three parties at the Murder 
—Bothwell’s party blew up the House—Sir James Balfour en¬ 
gaged at the Murder—His strange Letter to Cecil claiming his 
and Queen Elizabeth’s protection from the peril of being tried 
for the Murder . . . . . . . . 121 


CHAPTER XIX. 

Special service of Balfour and Archibald Douglas on occasion of 
King’s Murder—What became of Damley’s Papers ?—They 
would probably have compromised Murray and Randolph— 
Letter to Cecil stating details of King’s death—The watching 
party of the Conspirators (Andrew Carr’s) . . . 126 


CHAPTER XX. 

The Queen’s conduct after the Murder—Warning from Paris of a 
further Plot still to be executed against her—She takes pre¬ 
cautions for the safety of her Child—Why were not more 
energetic efforts used to bring the Murderers to justice ?—Both- 
well’s collusive Trial—Murray, Morton, and others convene 
Parliament, and hurry through Confirmations of their own 
Grants of Crown Lands, within seventy days after Darnley’s 


XVI 


CONTENTS. 


death—Murray goes abroad—His Will—His Nomination of 
Mary Queen of Scots to direct his Daughter’s Education and 
direct his Executors for her welfare . .1 

CHAPTER XXL 

Bond obtained by Bothwell from the Nobles to promote his Mar¬ 
riage with the Queen—Mary discountenances his Suit and 
leaves Edinburgh—His next step that of a desperate man— 
He seizes her with an overpowering force and carries her 
Prisoner to Dunbar, shows her the Bond of the Nobles, and in 
the end overcomes her by “ unleisum means”—Carries her 
Prisoner to Edinburgh and obtains a Judicial Declaration to 
protect him from the crime of Kape—A Marriage solemnised 
in Protestant form—Craig protests and denounces it from the 
Pulpit ; and afterwards testifies in General Assembly that 
he stood alone in opposing the Marriage—French Ambassador’s 
account of Mary’s miserable state—Her threats of Suicide- 
Sir James Melville’s account of these—Bothwell’s precipitation 
—Marriage impossible when he carried the Queen off—Got 
himself divorced from his Wife while the Queen was his 
Prisoner ......... I 


CHAPTER XXII. 

Bothwell’s Proceedings—Aimed at making himself absolute— 
Elizabeth’s old dislike to him—Communication from English 
Court to Morton—Confederates abandon Bothwell—Melville 
corrupts Balfour, who held the Castle of Edinburgh—Balfour 
opens Bothwell’s desk and seizes his Papers, including the 
Conspirators’ Bond for the King’s Murder—They now denounce 
Bothwell—He escapes, carrying the Queen with him—The 
hostile parties meet at Carberry Hill—The Conspirators offer 
obedience to the Queen if' she will quit Bothwell—She does 
so, and they treat her as a Prisoner—Her miserable condition 

as described by an eyewitness—Her removal to Lochleven_ 

The Ensign which they displayed before her—They compel 
her to sign a Renunciation of the Crown—Proclaim her 
infant Son King and Murray Regent—Murray’s personal 
conduct to her while in prison .... 



CONTENTS. 


XVII 


CHAPTER XXIII. 


Page 

Parliament convoked in the infant King’s name—Notarial protest 
that the Queen was not a Prisoner—She protests that the re¬ 
nunciation of the Crown was invalid—Balfour holds the Bond 
for Damley’s Murder, and keeps the Castle—They buy him a 
second time—The Bond is burnt, and the Confederates then 
join in a Minute accusing the Queen of the Murder, and of 
having preconcerted her seizure by Bothwell—They had pre¬ 
viously executed their Summons of Treason against him, 
charging him with having forced the Queen—Consequently 
two incongruous Acts in that Parliament—Lethington said they 
were like men in a boat on fire . . . . 156 


CHAPTER XXIY. 

Morton produces the celebrated Silver Casket Letters against 
the Queen—He afterwards got them back, and they ultimately 
disappeared—Their production before Queen Elizabeth—Mary 
never allowed to see them—Even copies withheld by Eliza¬ 
beth—Pretended Promise of Marriage by Mary to Bothwell 
before Damley’s death ; in British Museum— Examination of 
their Authenticity —Proofs of Interpolation—Contrast with 
her style of language and thought —Her Wail for the 
Dead.162 


CHAPTER XXV. 

Examination of the Silver Casket Papers continued—Opinions of 
Brantome and Ronsard—Her Sonnet, Lire de Dieu —The 
Judgment of the English Privy Council after examining all 
these Papers—Duke of Norfolk—Hume’s mistake as to his 
opinion . . . • • • • • • 178 


CHAPTER XXVI. 


Resume of Events before Darnley’s Death—Detailed account of 
Murray’s proposal of Divorce—The Document misquoted by 


XV111 


CONTENTS. 


Page 


Mr. Froude—His excuse for Murray—Proposal of the Con¬ 
federates to get Damley convicted of Treason—Letters of 
the Spanish Ambassador—Murray’s conduct—Archibald Doug¬ 
las’s Letter to Queen Mary while she was a Prisoner in Eng¬ 
land .188 


CHAPTER XXVII. 

General result of the History in reference to Mary’s Guilt or 
Innocence—Special considerations which show the improba¬ 
bility of her having been concerned in Darnley’s Death . 196 


CHAPTER XXVIII. 

Elizabeth’s interference to procure a collusive acquittal of Archi¬ 
bald Douglas—Her Letter to King James—The private inter¬ 
view with Douglas—His expectation of being secured in the 
English Succession—Douglas’s Letter to Walsingham—Master 
of Gray’s Letter to Walsingham as to a Money-Bribe to the 
King for Douglas’s Acquittal—King’s interference at the Trial 
—Jury packed—Douglas Acquitted and sent as James’s Am¬ 
bassador to Elizabeth—Elizabeth’s evasion of the conditions as 
to the Succession . . . . . . . 201 


CHAPTER XXIX. 

Various schemes to get quit of Mary while a Prisoner in England 
—Randolph proposes Poison—Leicester’s Letter as to a War¬ 
rant for cutting her off without Trial—Killigrew’s negotiation 
with Morton for having her delivered into Scotland on Hostages 
that she should be put to Death within four hours—Killigrew’s 
Secret Instructions—Act of Association ultimately passed to 
entrap her—Elizabeth pacts her chief Ministers under an Oath 
of Association aimed at her Prisoner—Sends them to try her 
—She declines their jurisdiction—They condemn her—King 
James instructs Archibald Douglas, his Ambassador, to protest 
—Archibald Douglas’s Letter, treacherously warning him that 
he may endanger his own chance of Succession—He sub¬ 
mits ....... . 


205 


CONTENTS. 


xix 


CHAPTER XXX. 

Elizabeth signs the Warrant for Mary’s Execution—Letter sent to 
Sir Amias Paulet, by Elizabeth’s desire, to shorten Mary’s life 
—His Letter refusing—The Warrant is Executed—Elizabeth 
throws the blame on Davidson, her Secretary—His Declaration, 
narrating fully all that passed between Elizabeth and him— 

Her hypocritical Letter to King James . . . . 211 


CHAPTER XXXI. 

Tragic end of the Leading Conspirators—Death-scenes of Eliza¬ 
beth and Mary . . . . . . . . 219 


APPENDIX. 

I. Queen Elizabeth’s instructions to Sadler as to the Lord 
James Stuart’s enterprise toward Crown of Scotland— 

1559 . 225 

II. The Lord James Stuart’s letters to Norfolk and Cecil to 

keep Huntly’s letters in store against him—1559-60 . 225 

III. Address by the General Assembly to Mary, and her Answer 

—June 1565 ....... 226 

IV. Mary Stuart’s Instructions to her Ambassador, sent to Queen 

Elizabeth, in regard to the Religious troubles in France 
—1562 . 227 

V. Part 1. —Her Letter to Elizabeth for Justice to her Mer¬ 
chants of Wigtown, plundered in Ireland—1564 . 229 

Part 2.—Her Letter as to Merchants of Aberdeen, robbed 
by English Pirates—1564-5. . . . . 231 

VI. Mr. Randolph’s Letter to Queen Elizabeth as to Mary’s 

Secret Marriage to Darnley—16th July 1565 . 233 




XX 


CONTENTS. 


Page 


VII. Letter, Elizabeth to Mary Stuart, denying that she counte¬ 
nanced Murray’s Rebellion, and stating how she had re¬ 
pulsed him—29th October 1565 . . . . 234 

VIII. Drury to Cecil, as to Mary’s fruitless efforts, seconded by 
Darnley, to induce Bothwell and others to go to Mass, 
and as to Bothwell’s Marriage to Huntly’s Sister—16 th 
February 1565-6 ..... . 235 

IX. Mary Stuart’s Narrative of Riccio’s Murder—2d April 1566 236 

X. Fragmentary Memoir by Mary Stuart as to her Marriage 

with Darnley, and‘as to Leicester, Murray, etc. . 243 

XI. Cartel, Bothwell to Arran ; and Arran’s Answer—1559 245 

XII. Summons of Treason against Bothwell before Mary’s Mar¬ 
riage to Darnley—2d May 1565 . . . 247 

XIII. Randolph to Cecil as to Mary’s displeasure at Bothwell’s 

Return—His disrespectful words—Her request that he 
should not be received in England—15th March 1565 248 

XIV. Letter, Morton to Forster as to Accusation by the King 

and Bothwell against Murray, Lethington, and others, 
as the devisers of Riccio’s Slaughter, etc.—July 1566 250 

XV. Earl of Murray’s Will, made two months after Darnley’s 

Death—2d April 1567 ..... 251 

XVI. Part 1.—Letter, the Privy Council of Scotland to the 

Queen-Mother of France as to Darnley and Mary—8 th 
October 1566 ....... 252 

Part 2.—Translation of the French Ambassador’s Letter 
as to Darnley and Mary, and as to his conversations with 
Darnley—The conference of King and Queen before 
Privy Council—-His conduct, and his fear of being 
affronted by Elizabeth’s Ambassador at the Baptism— 

17th October 1566 257 

XVII. Extracts from old MS. in British Museum, containing a 

recital of Murray’s schemes and conduct, down to 
Mary’s escape from Loehleven . . . . 261 


/ 


CONTENTS. xxi 

Page 

XVIII. Part 1.—List of such as are to be entertained in Scotland 
with Pensions out of England ; from original in British 
Museum ........ 263 

Part 2.—Killigrew to Lord Burghley as to Persons to be 
considered with Pensions, and as to how Elizabeth 
might “ oversee” the murders—15th March 1573 . 264 

XIX. Evidence of Huntly and Argyle touching the Murder of 
the King of Scots, with Murray’s Answer (pasted on the 
back) ; in British Museum . . . . . 265 

XX. Letter, the Master of Gray to Walsingham, as to Archibald 
Douglas’s Trial ; that the King hath “ condescended to 
all things and desiring to have ,£1000 sent of the 
bribe promised—17th May 1586 . . . 269 

XXI. Extracts from Mary Stuart’s Will * . . 270 


























* 
























PREFACE TO SECOND EDITION 


AND EEPLY TO ME. FEOUDE. 


Me. Feoude, conscious that the case against Mary 
Stuart depends on the celebrated casket letters, gave 
a pledge that in the continuation of his History he 
should fully examine and establish their authenticity. 
He has not redeemed his pledge. He now rests, in 
substance, on an appeal to contemporary opinion— 
not always a reliable guide in historical questions, 
least so in a case which was never openly tried; and 
as to writings which were carefully withheld from the 
inspection of the person in whose handwriting they 
were said to be— 

“ I accept them as genuine” (he says in his new volumes) 
“ because they were submitted to the scrutiny of almost the 
entire English peerage, and especially to those among the peers 
who were most interested in discovering them to be forged, and 
by them admitted to be indisputably in the handwriting of the Queen of 
Scots; because the letters in the text especially refer to conversa¬ 
tions with Lord Huntly, who was then and always one of Mary 
Stuart’s truest adherents—conversations which he could have 
denied had they been false, and which he never did deny; because 
their contents were confirmed in every particular unfavourable to 
the Queen by a Catholic informant of the Spanish ambassador, 
b 


XXIV 


PREFACE TO SECOND EDITION 


who hurried from the spot to London immediately after the final 
catastrophe for which they prepared the way ; and lastly, because 
there is no ground whatever to doubt the genuineness of the 
entire set of the casket letters, except such as arises from the 
hardy and long-continued, but entirely baseless denial of in¬ 
terested or sentimental partisans.” 1 

He also says that Huntly and Argyll “ published a state¬ 
ment in which they accused Murray of having been privy to the 
murder, yet they said nothing about a forgery of the letters, which, 
if real, they could not but have known ; and had they been able to 
prove, had they been able even plausibly to assert, that there 
had been foul play against the Queen, the whole of Europe 
would at once have declared on her side.” 2 

This perilling of his case on the testimony of 
Huntly and Argyll is singularly unfortunate for Mr. 
Froude. “Huntly” and “Argyll” are the foremost 
signatures to ,.he solemn declaration of thirty-five 
peers and prelates of Scotland in regard to these 
papers, that “the same are devised by themselves” 
(the Queen’s accusers) “ in some principal and sub- 
stantious clauses.” 3 

“ Almost the entire English peerage admitted them 
to be indisputably in the handwriting of the Queen of 
Scots.” Let us see what foundation there is for this 
assertion. Elizabeth, whom Mr. Froude (in his in¬ 
coherent account of the conferences on this subject) 
would represent as morbidly anxious to suppress the 
charge, caused these letters to be shown to the Earls 
of Northumberland, Westmoreland, Shrewsbury, Wor 

1 Froude, ix. 58. 2 lb. ix. 203. 

3 This declaration is printed by Goodall, ii. 361. 


PREFACE TO SECOND EDITION 


XXV 


cester, Huntingdon, and Warwick (the English peer¬ 
age !) “ specially to keep the same secret to themselves” 
There are two minutes of this proceeding, differing 
from each other, both altered and interlined by Mary 
Stuart's mortal enemy, Cecil. 1 These contain all that 
we know of the matter. The “ writings lying all to¬ 
gether upon the council-table, the same were, one after 
another, showed rather by hap, as the same did ly upon 
the table, than with any choice made, as by the ^nature 
thereof, if time had so served, might have been." 2 The 
Lords declared beforehand that they would not 
“ form any final opinion or determination." 3 The 
papers “ were compared for the manne of writing and 
fashion of orthography" with other letters produced 
by Elizabeth and Cecil, “ in collation whereof," writes 
Cecil parenthetically, “ no difference was found." 4 This 
incidental reference in Cecil's manipulated minute to 
a similarity of handwriting, noticed on a preliminary 
examination so obviously perfunctory, not by men 
practised in such inquiries, but by persons who were 
not even prepared to look for forged passages being 
interwoven with true, 5 is the whole authority for Mr. 
Froude's statement. This passed in December 1568. 

In the following month the Privy Council of England 

1 Journal, 14th and 15th December 1568 ; Goodall, ii. 247, * 
254. 

2 Goodall, ii. 259. 3 lb. 255. 

4 76. ii. 256. 5 See p. 171 of this volume. 


XXVI 


PREFACE TO SECOND EDITION. 


pronounced the unanimous verdict by which, without 
hearing a defence, they discredited the case against 
Mary Stuart, 1 —which solemn verdict Mr. Froude treats 
as of no account whatever. 

“ Their contents were confirmed in every particular 
unfavorable to the Queen by a Catholic informant,” 
whose story Mr. Froude prudently gives in Spanish . 2 
The casket papers extend in Anderson’s edition to 
forty-one pages of printed quarto. Their confirmation 
“in every particular” is quoted by Mr. Froude in little 
more than as many Spanish words. Wonderful con¬ 
densation of language and thought! Wonderful pre¬ 
science, also! Some of the letters could not then 
have been in existence. Many of the facts to which 
they were intended to give a criminating colour had 
not even occurred. It was never pretended that these 
papers were found before the end of June; the date 
which Mr. Froude gives for this confirmation of their 
every particular is the first of the previous March! 
Here is the passage which Mr. Froude quotes as con¬ 
taining this confirmation; but we add a translation :— 

“Por las quales parece que For which suspicion seems 
induce sospecha de haber sabido to be excited that the Queen 
o permitido la Reyna este tra- knew or allowed this treaty f 


1 See pp. 185, 186, of this volume. 2 Froude, ix. 18. 

3 The word “ tratado” signifies treaty, but might possibly be 
used for transaction if the context (which Mr. Froude has not 
given) requires that meaning. 



PREFACE TO SECOND EDITION. 


tado; y aun apuntandole que 
me dixese lo que le parecia con- 
forme a lo que el habia visto y 
colegido, si la Reyna tenia cul¬ 
pa delta, aunque no la condend 
de palabra no la salbo nada” 
(De Silva to Philip, March 1, 
1567 ; Froude, ix. 18). 


xxvii 

and I urging him to tell me 
his impression, according to 
what he had seen and gathered, 
if the Queen was to blame for 
it, he neither expressly con¬ 
demned nor absolved her (De 
Silva to Philip, March 1 
1567 ; Froude, ix. 18). 


What treaty ? Which Queen ? And where is the 
confirmation of the casket letters ? Probably the pre¬ 
vious part of the despatch would, tell of the placards ac¬ 
cusing the queen, which were stuck up in Edinburgh 
immediately after Darnley’s death; and this, or some¬ 
thing like it, may be what is referred to in the passage 
which Mr. Froude quotes. But if the despatch had really 
contained any facts telling against Mary Stuart, he was 
not very likely to have left them out. At all events, 
this passage, which he has taken from the Spanish 
records at Simancas, and has made obscure by with¬ 
holding its context, is all that he gives for the con¬ 
firmation he speaks of. But he tells that this “ Catholic 
informant” was Moret, the ambassador of Savoy, and 
there is fortunately in existence a very full report of 
Moret’s observations and views, dated a fortnight later. 
It is contained in a despatch from the papal nuncio, 
is printed at great length by Count Labanoff, contains 
most interesting details as to the King’s death (on 
which the narrative of our own text is in part founded), 
and is altogether inconsistent with the representation 


xxviii PREFACE TO SECOND EDITION 

now made by Mr. Fronde as proceeding from Moret. 1 
On the contrary, it bears that Murray was suspected 
of designs on his sisters life and kingdom. 

But Mr. Froude takes great liberties with his 
Spanish authorities. To convey the idea that Mary 
Stuart was looked upon as unworthy, he gives the fol¬ 
lowing as a translation of another Spanish despatch :— 

“ It would require some skill to bring his Majesty 
(Philip of Spain) to hold out a hand to her; but he 
was a great prince, and in the service of God, and 
considering the present condition of the world, his 
Majesty might overlook her faults , and accept her as 
sound .” 2 

There is no such imputation or insinuation in the 
original. Its words are :— 

“ Aunque puede tener, alguna arte esto, para hacer 
salir a su Majestad h ayudarla, arte es que paresce que 
su Majestad puede pasarla y tomarla por la buena pues 
es en el servicio de Dios y bien de las materias que hoy 
se tratan en el mundo. Su Majestad es Catolico y 
magnanimo Principe,” etc. 

The meaning is, that although some art may have 
been used to induce his Majesty to support her, it is an 
art which he might take in good part as in God s ser¬ 
vice, and useful for the matters then treated of in the 

1 Papal nuncio to Grand Duke of Tuscany, 16th March 
1567, Archives de Medici. 

2 Froude, ix. 299. 


PREFACE TO SECOND EDITION. xxix 

world. He was a Catholic and magnanimous prince, 
etc. 

Mr Froude has made no attempt to explain his 
numerous blunders, already shown in this volume, some 
ludicrous, others of a very grave character, 1 nor has he 
even acknowledged or corrected them. But he has 
quoted one of the forged letters at length, and has thus 
brought into prominence an anachronism, not hitherto 
made the subject of remark, which of itself seems de¬ 
cisive against the authenticity of the paper. This 
letter was exhibited as written by the Queen to Both- 
well in regard to his preparations for carrying her off, 
ostensibly by force, to Dunbar. Nothing is more certain 
than that Bothwell was then undivorced from his wife, 
the Earl of Huntly's sister; 2 indeed, that the process 
of divorce was begun during Mary's subsequent cap¬ 
tivity at Dunbar. But in this letter she is made to 
refer to Huntly as “your” (Bothwell's) “ brother-in-law 
that was ,” 3 showing plainly that the letter was 
concocted after the divorce, though purporting to 
have been written to arrange the prior seizure of the 
Queen! 

Speaking of Mary Stuart in 1567, Mr. Froude says 
her passions “ had dragged her down toThe level of a 

1 See pp. 98, 99 and note ; p. 102 and note; 190 and notes; 
191; 192,note; 83, note; 198, etc. 

2 See p. 145 of this volume, and Diurnal quoted in note to 

p. 143 . 8 Froude, ix. 60. 


XXX 


PREFACE TO SECOND EDITION. 


brute,” 1 “ infernal is not too bard an epithet” for her. 2 
He does not appear to see how severely his violent 
detraction is rebuked by the facts which he afterwards 
chronicles, that in 1569 “France already had its eye on 
her as a fit match, could she escape, for the Duke of 
Anjou” 3 —that Don John of Austria was once more 
talked of as her suitor. 4 —and that “the stream ran so 
violently that on the 27th of August a vote was car¬ 
ried in full council” (the Privy Council of England) 
“ for the settlement of the succession by the marriage 
of the Queen of Scots to some English nobleman. 
Many peers,” (according to Don Guerau) “ the greatest 
in the land,” set their hands to a “ bond to stand by 
Norfolk in carrying the resolution into effect.” 5 Nor¬ 
folk—himself the candidate for her hand—said that 
Elizabeth “ dare not refuse—all the peers except a very 
few were determined to have it so.” 6 

Our author, with charming credulity, adopts Snd 
characteristically embellishes the ridiculous tales which 
were extorted from Both well's French page, Nicholas Hu¬ 
bert, commonly called Paris. The Queen left her husband 
at midnight. “ She - slept soundly,” says Mr. Froude, 
and when Paris went to announce the King's murder, 
the windows were still closed. The room ivas already 
hung with Hack, and lighted with candles. She her- 

1 Froude, ix. 44. 2 IK ix. 118. 

3 lb. ix. 478. 4 IK ix. 373. 

5 IK ix. 471. 6 IK ix. 472. 


PREFACE TO SECOND EDITION 


XXXI 


self was breakfasting in bed, eating composedly, as 
Paris observed, a new-laid egg.” 1 A sound sleep, 
indeed; not disturbed by the explosion at Kirk of 
Field, which, if guilty, she must have expected, 
nor even by nailing up the black hangings, which 
a woman who was not a fool is here supposed to 
have ordered in anticipation of her husband’s mur¬ 
der !—as if to prepare evidence against herself; 
evidence which, if it had been true, must have 
been notorious, but which was never heard of till 
“ the boots” were applied to poor Paris more than two 
years afterwards. How different from Clernault’s re¬ 
port : “ It may be imagined in what distress this poor 
Princess was when the dreadful event was made known 
to her, especially since it occurred when her Majesty 
and her husband had come to a better understanding. 
Clernault left her in such affliction that he thought 
her the most unfortunate of queens.” 2 Even Robert¬ 
son acknowledges that the declarations which are called 
by the name of Paris “ contain some improbable cir¬ 
cumstances,” and that “ the fear of death, the violence 
of torture, and the desire of pleasing those in whose 
power he was, tempted him, perhaps, to feign some 
circumstances and to exaggerate others.” 3 “He 
signed it,” says Mr. Froude, “ and was then executed, 

1 Fronde, ix. 5. 

2 See this volume, p. 109, note; also 107, note. 

3 Robertson’s Dissertation on King Henry’s murder. 


xxxii PREFACE TO SECOND EDITION 

that there might he no retractation or contradiction . 
The haste and the concealment were intended merely 
to baffle Elizabeth, who, it was feared, would attempt 
to get hold of him and suppress his evidence Z” 1 
Elizabeth suppress his .evidence! She was not slow 
to use it. How was his hurried death needed to hin¬ 
der the suppression of evidence which they had taken 
in writing for what it was worth ? She told He Silva 
that the Queen of Scots “had so many friends” (in 
England), “ that to declare her innocence 2 would be 
perilous to the country and to (Elizabeth) herself. 
Her acquittal should be so contrived as to leave a 
doubt.”—And what was the date of this acknowledged 
deed of the “ stainless Murray ?” The same month of 
August 1569, in which he and Elizabeth were trem¬ 
bling on their seats, because even the Privy Council 
of England had become unruly, and voted for the 
recognition of Mary Stuart as heiress of the English 
crown, and for her marriage to Norfolk. 

The French of some parts of Paris’ declaration is 
much like the French of the forged passages in the 
casket letters. To take a decisive example : Paris, 

1 Froude, ix. 4, note. 

2 “ Si se declarabo su innocencia” (De Silva’s letter, quoted 
by Froude, ix. 271). Mr. Froude translates these words “to 
declare her innocent,” instead of to declare her innocence , the 
words actually used by Elizabeth implying her consciousness 
of Mary’s innocence, while disclosing the design to leave her 
under suspicion. 


PREFACE TO SECOND EDITION. xxxiii 
in speaking of the Queen’s chamber at Kirk of Field 
being right under (that is, immediately below) the 
King’s, is twice over represented as using the words 
“ droict soubz la chambre du Roy,” “ clroit soubz le 
lict du Roy,”—blunders so gross that no Frenchman 
could have made them. It seems almost impossible to 
touch the evidences which were brought against the 
Queen without detecting traces of transparent fraud. 

Mr. Froude attempts to support his statement as to 
the English peerage by a special and repeated assurance 
that the greatest nobleman in England, the Duke of 
Norfolk, had no doubt that the letters were genuine, 
and that the Queen of Scots was guilty. We have 
already shown that Norfolk risked his life at his trial 
to give an emphatic denial to this imputation. 1 But 
Mr. Froude coolly says “ the silence of Norfolk at this, 
the supreme moment of his own fate and Mary Stuart’s, 
would be proof sufficient against her.” 2 It would 
indeed have been difficult, if Norfolk had believed 
her so degraded, to account for his having become, 
with consent of his peers, the suitor of Mary Stuart, 
when her fortunes were at the lowest ebb, and herself 
a prisoner. But Mr. Froude thinks it enough to say, 
with a fine touch of unconscious simplicity, that “ she 
was not likely to repeat a proceeding the consequences 
of which had been so inconvenient to her !” 3 

1 P. 186 of this volume, note 2. 2 Froude, x. 327. 

3 lb. ix. 280. 


XXXIV 


PREFACE TO SECOND EDITION 


This brings ns to a matter which it is painful to 
touch. We had already noticed, perhaps too gently, 
a flagrant instance of words being put by Mr. Froude 
into Mary Stuart's mouth, to give a colour to asser¬ 
tions for which he had no proof. 1 

In like manner he refers to a despatch of Norfolk 2 
enclosing extracts from the casket letters, and leaving 
it to Elizabeth to say whether, if they were genuine, 
“which he and his companions believed them to be” 
there could be any doubt of the Queen of Scot's guilt. 
Mr. Froude gives with inverted commas the words in 
italics as a quotation from Norfolk's despatch. There 
are no such words in it, nor anything like them. 
On the contrary, whenever the letters are referred to in 
it, they are spoken of with marked suspicion—“ of her 
own hand, as they say;” “written, as they say, with her 
own handand again, “ if the said letters be written 
with her own hand." 3 Nor was it possible for Norfolk 
at that time to have expressed such an opinion, because 
the extracts which he transmits with his despatch 
show that he had seen only the Scotch copies, not the 
pretended originals. Among his quotations he gives 
the remarkable passage, “ mak gude watch that the bird 

1 P. 190 of this volume. 2 Froude, ix. 292. 

3 See the despatch in Anderson (whose copy Mr. Froude pro¬ 
fesses to quote from), vohi v. part ii. p. 58. It is also in Goodall, ii. 
p. 139. The original despatch is in the Cotton Library, and gives 
no warrant for Mr. Froude’s quotation. 


PREFACE TO SECOND EDITION 


XXXV 


escape not out of the cage ,” 1 which the slightest 
inspection of the French would have shown to be 
fraudulent . 2 

Similar in character and purpose, though of com¬ 
parative unimportance, is a quotation relating to Mur¬ 
ray. It occurs in the sarcastic passage in Throkmor- 
tons letter as to Murray inveighing “ against the 
tragedy and the players therein, so little like he hath 
to horrible sins .” 8 Mr. Froude converts the sneer 
into a certificate of character, and quotes it as “ none 
showed so little liking to such horrible sins .” 4 

Akin to these, perhaps worse,—Mr. Froude, in his 
zeal to make out a case against the Queen, has found 
it necessary to improve on the work of the forgers. 
They had put down as proceeding from her pen the 
common phrase of resolute resistance— 

“ The place shall hold unto the death.” 

“ Ceste forteresse sera conservee jusques & la mort.” 

“ Presidium ad mortem usque custodietur.” 5 

Mr. Froude alters it to— 

“The plan shall hold to the death;” 6 
and perverts it into a declared scheme for the King's 
murder. 

1 See the extracts in Goodall ii., 148-150. 

2 Seep. 180 of this volume; also note 2 on that page. See 
also p. 106. 

3 See p. 154 of this volume, note 1. 4 Froude, ix. 155. 

5 Goodall, ii. 12. 6 Froude, viii. 358. 


xxxvi PREFACE TO SECOND EDITION 

When Mr. Froude shall have given a satisfactory 
answer to these observations, and to those on the sub¬ 
stance of the letters which are contained in the 24th 
and 25th chapters of this volume, it will be quite time 
enough for him to complain that he has nothing to 
meet except “ hardy and baseless denials.” 

It is a pleasure to turn from such specimens of 
spurious history to the admirable French work by 
Professor Wiesener, too little known in England. M. 
Wiesener has made a valuable contribution to the his¬ 
tory of Mary Stuart. He pronounces the French of 
the casket letters wretched, such as could not have 
been written by a person educated in France. “ They 
abound,” he says, “ in blunders equally coarse and ridi¬ 
culous, both in language and in meaning;” “they are 
but parts of a huge system of calumny.” He also sa¬ 
tisfactorily shows that the admission made in this 
volume 1 in regard to Mary Stuart having signed the 
League against the Protestants is an error. That 
admission was made on the evidence of a despatch 
by Randolph; But the distinguished Professor of 
History has shown that it was contradicted by a 
later despatch :— 

“ Se retracte le 14 du meme mois, en disant que ce 
pacte est entre les mains de la reine, mais quelle n’a 
pas encore adhere ” 


1 P. 46. 


PREFACE TO SECOND EDITION xxxvii 

He also quotes the following conclusive passage on 
this subject from the despatch written after Darnley’s 
death by the Bishop of Mondovi, the papal legate to 
Scotland : x — 

“ If the Queen had done as was proposed, and 
urged on her (in regard to the League) with the promise 
of all succour necessary for her objects, she would at 
this time have found herself wholly mistress of her 
kingdom, in a position to establish fully the Holy 
Catholic faith. But she would never listen to it, 
though the Bishop of Dunblane and Father Edmond 
(Jesuit) were sent to determine her to embrace this 
most wise enterprise/’ 

Thus is taken away the worst thing that seemed 
to remain in Mary’s true history. 

1 16th March 1567, Archives de Medici. 



MARY STUART. 


CHAPTER I. 

Three centuries ago, a French fleet sailed up the 
Firth of Clyde, past Lochryan, Ailsa, Arran, and the 
Cumbraes, and cast anchor at Dumbarton. It took on 
board a little girl, six years of age—a merry creature 
who had not a care in the world—hoisted the flag 
of Scotland, and bore her away to the coast of France. 
The policy, perhaps the fate, of England, France, and 
Scotland, hung on that voyage. Before she was three 
months old intrigue had been busily at work to secure 
that little lady’s hand; and long ere the time we now 
speak of, much blood—Scotch, English, and French— 
had been shed to determine who should be her husband. 

There passed with her to France, in the same ship, 
a stripling of seventeen, her illegitimate brother, who, 
though incapable of inheritance, was brought up in the 
most intimate family intercourse with her: young 
enough to engage the sisterly affection of her warm 
heart, old enough to be already her trusted counsellor 
and guide. His life was to be a continued betrayal of 
her confidence. But whatever wild thoughts may have 

B 



MARY STUART. 


passed through his busy brain, neither of them could 
have dreamed in those early days of the frightful tra¬ 
gedies in which they were to become the chief actors. 
In the yet distant future he was to usurp her place and 
power, she to become his miserable prisoner; and it was 
all to end at last in his being shot down, without law, 
at the summit of his greatness, and in her being 
doomed to die, under the forms of law, on an English 
scaffold. Yet, though their hearts were light on this 
summer voyage, it was not without its dangers. An 
English fleet watched to intercept them, and one of 
their galleys was taken; but they escaped, and were 
safely landed in France. 

Twelve years later, a fleet sailed from sunny France, 
again bearing the same girl, now budding towards 
womanhood. It steered for the Firth of Forth. There 
is no laughter now. Her first great sorrow has come 
upon her early. She is deeply clothed in mourning— 
a widow at eighteen. Again an English fleet watched 
to intercept her. Again she escaped narrowly, losing 
one of her vessels. She has been Queen of France. 
One blow has deprived her of a husband and a crown. 
She claims to be Queen of England. That claim rests 
on strong grounds of law. It is to be the dream of her 
life, and she is never to realise it. She is the acknow¬ 
ledged Queen of Scotland ; but she lands on her native 
shore with sad forebodings and a heavy heart. No 
one has ever charged her with having misconducted 
herself before that time; yet such was the distracted 
state of her country, such the weakness of her autho- 


MARY STUART. 


3 


rity, that she said, before she set out on this voyage 
“ Perhaps it were better for me to die than to live.” 

Less than six busy years of troubled government 
and we see her again—on the Firth of Solway. She 
has been despoiled of her Scottish crown. She is flying 
for her life in a fishing-boat. “ For ninety miles” (she 
writes) “ I rode across the country without lighting or 
drawing bridle; slept on the bare floor ; no food but 
oatmeal; without the company of a female; not daring 
to travel except by stealth at night.” And now the 
die is cast, and in spite of many warnings she this time 
throws herself on the generosity of England. 

Then follow nineteen years of bitter captivity— 

Now blooms the lily by the bank, 

The primrose on the brae; 

The hawthorn’s budding in the glen, 

And milk-white is the slae ; 

The meanest hind in fair Scotland 
May rove their sweets amang ; 

But I, the Queen o’ a’ Scotland, 

Maun lie in prison strang. 

At last we see a long hall in the old castle of Fother- 
ingay : a platform laid with black—the actors and 
spectators all clothed in black. There comes in, un¬ 
supported, to die, a lady of noble presence. She has 
been wickedly denied the aid of her spiritual comforter, 
and, alone with God, has administered to herself the 
last sacrament of her religion, without the blessing or 
counsel of a minister. Even her latest moments are 
disturbed by theological dispute. But she is calm and 
resigned to God’s will. She lays her head on the block. 


4 


MARY STUART. 


The executioner strikes and makes a ghastly wound. 
She does not even stir. He strikes again, but his work 
is incomplete ; and with a third blow the life and sor¬ 
rows of Mary Stuart are brought to an end. 

It is one of the great problems of history, whether 
these terrible calamities were brought upon her by her 
own wickedness or by the contrivance of others. 


MARY STUART 


5 


CHAPTER II. 

Mary Stuart came to the throne when six days old, 1 
and the battle of intrigue began at once. The King of 
England coveted her kingdom. The King of France 
longed for it, as a thorn in the side of his English ene¬ 
mies. Both coloured their designs by religion. Henry 
of England sought to propitiate the Reformers. His 
royal brother of France stood by the adherents of Rome. 
—Two great Scottish houses—Lennox and Hamilton— 
led the domestic contest. Hamilton was the next heir 
to the Scottish throne, and now became Regent. Henry 
for a time won him to his interest by the prospect of a 
family alliance. He promised the hand of his daughter, 
the Princess Elizabeth (she who afterwards became the 
famous Queen of England), to Hamilton’s son. Gained 
by this lure, the Regent contracted his young ward, 
Mary Stuart, a child in the cradle, to Henry’s only son, 
Edward, Prince of Wales, then in his sixth year; and 
the policy of all, except France, was to have united 
the two crowns in the persons of these royal children. 
But Henry got a secret hint from the Continent that 
Hamilton was playing false; that he was counselled by 
France to promise the child, but not to part with her 
custody, so that when she grew up she could withdraw. 

‘Born 8th December 1542. 


6 


MARY STUART. 


The Regent vacillated sadly, now in favour of England, 
now of France. He avowed himself a Protestant, but 
returned to the Romish faith, persecuted the Reformers, 
and again, at the end of many years, did public penance 
on the demand of Knox for his tergiversation. Henry 
probably thought that Hamilton’s price was too high; 
so he was slow to fulfil his promise of the Princess. 
Lennox was less exacting. He, too, was willing to sell 
his country for a wife, but he was content with Henry’s 
niece, wdio had four lives between her and the English 
crown. He agreed that England should have a Pro¬ 
tectorate over Scotland, and bargained that he should 
rule the country in England’s name. 

Hamilton and the Scottish Parliament withdrew 
from the projected marriage of Mary Stuart with 
Prince Edward. The Cardinal (Beaton) and the 
Church in Scotland had become alarmed. They dex¬ 
terously raised the cry of national independence. 
Lennox’s engagement, which would have made Scot¬ 
land an English province, roused the patriotic feelings 
of the country, and after much bloodshed Henry’s 
great scheme terminated in failure. Lennox suffered 
forfeiture as a traitor, and was expatriated. Mary 
Stuart was promised in marriage to the heir of 
France, and France guaranteed to Hamilton his right 
to succeed after Mary to the Scottish throne. 

These were the circumstances under which Mary 
was sent to France in her childhood . 1 She was there 
brought up, not among the dissipations of a court, as 
1 7th August 1548. 


MARY ST [/ART. 


7 


lias been often said, bnt in tbe seclusion of a nunnery , 1 
where she remained till she was married. She there 
imbibed that affection for the Church of Eome which 
was unwavering till death. At sixteen she was wed¬ 
ded to Francis, the Dauphin ; 2 and that their union 
might embrace the people a Eoyal Act was issued 
by which all natives of Scotland were naturalised 
in France. There were great public rejoicings in 
Scotland on the marriage, and the huge cannon Mons 
Meg was employed to signalise the event. There is a 
charge in the public accounts of that date “ for rais¬ 
ing of Mons forth of her lair to be schote, and for finding 
and carrying her bullet, after she was schote, fra Wardie 
Muir to the Castle of Edinburgh.” Wardie Muir is 
nearly two miles from the Castle; so that, even accord¬ 
ing to modern notions, the range of this old national 
gun was by no means despicable. 

A few weeks before the marriage the unsuspicious 
young Queen was beguiled by her uncles, the Cardi¬ 
nal of Lorraine and the Duke of Guise, into granting 
two deeds of tremendous import 3 —one mortgaging 
the kingdom of Scotland and its revenues to the 
French king for a million of pieces of gold, as the 
costs which he had incurred in her education and the 
protection of her realm; the other, still more audacious, 
settling upon him and his heirs, in absolute right, the 
crown of Scotland and 'her whole claims on the 

1 Ellis, 1st series, vol. ii. p. 252. 2 24th April 1558. 

3 LabanofF, vol. i. pp. 50 and 52. These deeds are dated 4th 
April 1558. 


8 


MARY STUART. 


crown of England. These portentous deeds threatened 
Europe with the ultimate annexation of England, 
Scotland, and Ireland to the kingdom of France. Their 
existence was a great state secret. Had they come 
into operation they would have cost oceans of blood. 
But happily they contained a coudition that they 
should not take effect unless Mary should die childless; 
and as she left a son the danger eventually vanished. 

John Knox was not satisfied with Mary's French 
marriage, though he knew nothing of the secret settle¬ 
ment of the crown. His experience of queens had not 
been encouraging. He had been hunted out of Eng¬ 
land by Mary Tudor . 1 He had come into collision 
with Mary of Guise, the Queen Dowager of Scotland, 
of whom he has recorded that “ the crown on her head 
was as seemly a sight as a saddle on the back of ane 
unruly cow;" and he was by no means well affected 
towards her daughter Mary Stuart. So he issued, in 
this year, at Geneva,, his “ Blast against the Regiment of 
Women." It is a very curious work. He says in it— 

“ This monstriferous empire of women, among all 
enormities that this day do abound upon the face of 
the whole earth, is most detestable and damnable. 
Even men subject to the counsel or empire of then- 
wives are unworthy of all public office." This was 
one of John’s hobbies, and he rode it to death. But 
with what power he urges it: “ No man ever saw a 
lion stoop before a lioness !" 

1558. She died on 17th November of that year, and was 
succeeded by her sister Queen Elizabeth. 


MAR Y STUART. 


9 


CHAPTER III. 

Mary Stuart, on the death of her father-in-law, 1 
became Queen of France, and Francis, her husband, 
King. The Scottish Parliament had previously voted 
him the matrimonial crown. Their reign was short 
in France and uneasy in Scotland. The old disturb¬ 
ances, fomented as before by English influence, broke 
out from time to time among the Scottish nobles, and 
soon became alarming. That dread of foreign influence 
which had defeated Henry was now roused against 
France, for Mary’s father-in-law, during her childhood, 
had planted Frenchmen in some chief places of power 
in her native kingdom. The war of creeds, too, had 
gone on, and as the parties became more equally 
matched their struggle grew more embittered. An 
insurrection of the most alarming character broke out 
in 1559. 

Elizabeth had succeeded to the English throne, and 
her jealousy was roused to the highest pitch on learn¬ 
ing that Francis and Mary now quartered the arms of 
England with their own. This was an assertion of 
Mary’s prior title to the English crown. She was then 
a girl of seventeen, acting under the control of others. 
But it would be difficult to say whether the claim 
MOth July 1559. 


IO 


MARY STUART. 


which was thus put forward, or her adherence to the 
church in which she was educated, contributed more 
to her eventual downfall. 

Elizabeth, at the desire of her father, Henry VIII., 
had been declared illegitimate by an Act of the English 
Parliament, and that Act had never been repealed. 
But Henry had subsequently procured another Act, by 
which, without changing her status of illegitimacy, 
the crown was by the will of the three Estates 
settled upon her. If Elizabeth was incapable of suc¬ 
cession, Mary Stuart, who was descended from Henry 
VII., was the nearest heir to the English crown. 
Elizabeth stood on a parliamentary title, Mary on 
legitimacy. The history and struggles of a later time 
have settled that, by the constitution of England, Eliza¬ 
beth had the better claim. But that was far from being 
recognised in her own day. The uncertainty of her 
title kept her anxious and miserable all her life. And 
when, on her accession, Mary and her husband asserted 
their claim, her indignation was unbounded. 

The insurrection in Scotland had among its leaders 
the Prior of St. Andrews. He was the Lord James 
Stuart, the illegitimate brother of his Queen. Even 
thus early he had conceived ideas of usurping the 
government. Knox had made a proposition of that 
kind to Elizabeth’s ministers, 1 and there exists an un- 

1 Croft’s letter to Cecil, 3d August 1559 (State Paper Office) 
gives particulars of a secret interview with Knox, who said the 
Protestants would leave the French and join the English, and 
proposed that the government of Scotland should he altered; the 


MARY ST[/ART. 


11 

published letter of Cecil, her chief counsellor (at that 
time acting as ambassador in Scotland), in which he 
says to Elizabeth herself: “The Lord James is not 
unlike to be a king soon.” 1 

Hamilton had been rewarded by France for his 
services with the dukedom of Chatelherault, which is 
still an appanage of his house. But he had no doubt 
got a hint of the secret settlement of the crown by 
which the King of France had broken his guarantee of 
the succession to him. He changed sides, and joined 
the insurgents. This disconcerted the scheme in 
favour of the Lord James, and indeed led to its 
abandonment for a time, for if Mary had been then 
deposed, it would have been impossible to pass over 
the claims of the lawful heir of the throne—the now 
Protestant duke. 

The insurgents made head, but their forces could 
scarcely be kept together for want of money. Queen 
Elizabeth revenged herself for Mary’s claim on her 
crown by sending them secret aid. 2 She wrote the 
instructions with her own hand. A convoy of treasure, 
furnished by her, was on its way from Berwick to 

Queen of England to have some one in Scotland to advise them; 
Arran (Hamilton’s son) to be conveyed to England, and if he 
was misliked, the Prior of St. Andrews to be thought of. 

1 Cecil to Queen Elizabeth, 19th June 1560 (State Paper 
Office). See also Appendix hereto, No. I, 

2 Elizabeth, 7th August 1559, sent Sadleir authority “ to prac¬ 
tise with any manner of persons in Scotland,” and secretly to 
reward them with such sums as he should think meet (Ellis’ 
Original Letters, 3d series, vol. iii. pp. 333-359). 


MARY STUART. 


I 2 

Edinburgh, when Janies, Earl of Both well, swooped 
down upon it, and carried it off in triumph. The 
blow was a severe one, and reduced the insurgents to 
great extremities. Elizabeth remembered it against 
Bothwell till the last day of his life. But she was not 
yet prepared for open hostilities, and when the Queen 
Dowager complained of her secret interference, she 
wrote back, “ I marvel much that your Majesty makes 
no surer account of my honour!” 1 

The Earl of Huntly had been slow to join the in¬ 
surgents. He was the most powerful nobleman in the 
north. Besides his own estates, he held, by favour of 
the crown, the vast earldoms of Murray and of Mar. 
The Lord James entered into communication with him, 
and Huntly was at last induced to write letters to 
Queen Elizabeth, and to Cecil her minister, containing 
matter which involved him in treason. 2 These letters 
were written with the knowledge, indeed on the per¬ 
suasion, of the Lord James. On the very next day, 
before they could have reached their destination, he 
wrote to Cecil and the Duke of Norfolk telling them 
that Huntly was about to join, and adding the treach¬ 
erous suggestion that his letters should be “kept in 
store for all adventures.” 3 

Huntly’s accession added greatly to the strength of 

1 State Paper Office, 23d November 1559. 

2 Huntly to Queen Elizabeth, 7th March 1560 ; do. to Cecil, 
same day ; do. to Lethington, same day (State Paper Office). 

3 Lord James Stuart to Duke of Norfolk, 8th March 1560, 
and to Cecil same day (State Paper Office). See Appendix 
hereto, No. II. 


MARY STUART. 


r 3 


the insurgents; and Elizabeth at last sent an army 
to their relief, blocked up the Firth of Forth with her 
fleet, and joined them in besieging and finally taking 
Leith. By the treaty then made Mary and her hus¬ 
band were to relinquish their rivalry with Elizabeth 
for the immediate possession of the English crown; 
but through the contrivance of Cecil (Elizabeth's am¬ 
bassador) the articles were so expressed as to be capable 
of implying also a total renunciation of Mary s right of 
succession, even if Elizabeth should die childless. This 
ambiguity became a fruitful source of misunderstand¬ 
ing between the two queens. It never was set right, 
and for that reason the treaty itself was never ratified, 
though its ratification was often demanded by Eliza¬ 
beth with threats of war. 

The Parliament of Scotland met soon after hostilities 
ceased : Mary was still in France, and no representative 
of the Crown attended to sanction its proceedings. It 
passed Acts abolishing the jurisdiction of the Pope, and 
establishing the Confession of Faith as the true doctrine 
of the Church of Scotland. These important Acts, though 
they did not receive the formal assent of the Crown, 
were acquiesced in by Mary, and were enforced by law 
during the whole of her reign. That Parliament passed 
another Act of a more questionable character, prohibit¬ 
ing the exercise of the Roman Catholic religion as 
symbolised by the mass, under the pain of confiscation 
for the first offence, banishment for the second, and 
death for the third. On this point Mary skilfully 
chose her battle-ground. While still in France she 


i4 


MARY STUART. 


announced her views on the subject in a remarkable 
conversation -with the English ambassador: “ I mean,” 
she said, “to constrain none of my subjects, and I 
trust they shall have no support to constrain me.” 1 
Henceforward she stood up, as well as she could, for 
freedom of opinion. 

The sudden death of Mary's husband, 2 the young 
King of France, which followed close on these events, 
totally changed everything. Mary at once lost the 
crown of France, and the fierce jealousies of her sub¬ 
jects against French interference ceased for ever. 

1 Bell, 1-92; Keith (Spott.), 2-34. 2 5th December 1560. 


MAR Y STUART 


i5 


CHAPTER IV. 

The Lord James, who had been the soul of the revolt 
against the young Queen’s authority, proceeded to 
France to confer with her on the altered state of 
affairs. 1 He went by way of London, and concerted 
his measures with the English ministers. He probably 
armed himself with the treasonable letters which 
Huntly had written to the English queen and govern¬ 
ment—at all events he had the address, in one way 
or other, to persuade his royal sister that Huntly was 
a chief conspirator against her crown and government, 
and that he himself was wholly at her devotion. Her 
affection for her brother, her position in France, which 
had now become irksome, and her wish to conciliate 
her subjects, all combined to second his efforts. He 
quickly gained the position of her chief counsellor, and 
carried back with him to Scotland her full commission 
and authority. 

Mary had become anxious to return to her native 
country, and applied to “ her dearest sister and cousin” 
Elizabeth, for an assurance that she might pass the 
seas unmolested by the English fleets. And here we get 
a peep behind the scenes. The Lord James’s scheme 
1 1561. 


MARY STUART. 


16 

now seems to have been to keep her in France that he 
might rule in her name. And there remains among 
the state papers in London a narrative by the English 
ambassador of a conference which he had with Mary's 
faithful counsellor, the Lord James, and his allies the 
Earl of Morton (who was the Lord James's brother- 
uterine) and Maitland of Lethington. He says, “I have 
shown your honour's letters unto the Lord James, Lord 
Morton, Lord Lethington. They wish, as your honour 
doth, that she might be staid yet for a space, and if it 
were not for their obedience' sake, some of them care 
not though they never saw her face." . . . “ They 

repose themselves upon the Queen's majesty our sove¬ 
reign's favour and support." 1 These were now Mary's 
chief and confidential ministers. Lethington actually 
wrote to Cecil expressing his opposition to her return, 
and hinting that her coming back might lead to 
“ wonderful tragedies." 

Elizabeth uncourteously refused the safe conduct 
which Mary had requested, and sent out her ships in 
all directions on the pretence of watching for pirates, 
but with the intention of intercepting her Scottish 
sister and conveying her to England. And there can be 
little doubt that, if she had succeeded, Mary's imprison¬ 
ment in England, and the Lord James's seizure of the 
government, would have been anticipated by a number 
of years. 

Mary escaped the English fleets in a fog, and landed 
safely in Scotland. Elizabeth had the assurance to 
1 Robertson, Appendix No. 5, p. 241. 


MARY STUART. 


i7 


send her an ambassador to congratulate her on her 
safe arrival in her native kingdom, and Mary’s policy 
led her to accept the congratulation as sincere. 

Before leaving France she stipulated that she should 
have the personal exercise of her own religion; but 
no sooner did she attempt to have mass celebrated in 
her private chapel at Holyrood than a riot broke out, 
and her chaplains were threatened with death. She 
nevertheless issued a proclamation prohibiting any 
attempt to disturb the Protestant order of religion 
which she “ found publicly standing on her arrival.” 1 
And after much angry discussion her personal claim 
to the exercise of her own religion was acquiesced in 
on the one hand, and she on the other submitted to 
the enforcement throughout Scotland of the informal 
law against the mass. 

Things went on smoothly for a considerable time. 
The Lord James was her chief minister, and her privy 
counsellors were wholly Protestant. But modern re¬ 
search has disclosed the fact, though it was unknown 
then, that he and almost all of them were in the 
secret pay of Elizabeth, and so continued during the 
whole of Mary’s reign. 

The Lord James signalised the commencement of 
his administration by a proceeding of wholesome 
vigour, which quelled the turbulence and marauding of 
the Borders; and having thus tried and consolidated 
his strength, he proceeded to carry out his long-cher¬ 
ished design against Huntly. 

1 25th August 1561. Knox, ii. 272. 

C 


i8 


MARY STUART. 


He and Huntly had united, at the close of the re¬ 
volt, in a compact with the other lords to stand by 
one another for their mutual protection. The ink was 
scarcely dry before he entered into a secret league with 
Argyle and Athole “to bridle Huntly.” 1 The oppor¬ 
tunity had now come for its execution. Marching an 
army into the Highlands, he called on Huntly to 
present himself before the Queen, interpreted his ab¬ 
sence into rebellion, summoned his castles to surrender, 
and beat him down in fight at Corrichie. Huntly was 
taken prisoner, and suddenly fe]l from his horse, stark 
dead, without a blow or wound. His eldest son was 
also taken prisoner. The Lord James had him be¬ 
headed at Aberdeen, and cruelly compelled the Queen 
to witness the execution, because she was supposed to 
have had some favour to the unfortunate young man, 
and he was of her own creed. Lord James now 
confiscated Huntly’s vast estates, and obtained for 
himself the Earldom of Murray and its immense 
territories, which the family of Huntly had hitherto 
possessed from the crown, and for which he had suc¬ 
ceeded in procuring a writing from the Queen while 
living in ostensible friendship with the man whom he 
had doomed to ruin. We are told by Keith 2 that he 
had actually applied for it on his first visit to the 
Queen in France; and the Privy Seal Register shows 

1 Randolph’s letter to Cecil, 23d September 1560; also 7th 
September 1560. 

2 Keith (Spott.), vol. ii. p. 22. See also Chalmers, vol. i. pp. 
78 and 80 ; Privy Seal Register, xxxi. 45, 46. 


MARY STUART. 


i9 


that he had obtained an inchoate 1 grant of the earldom 
six months before he succeeded in driving Huntly into 
rebellion.—Henceforth the Lord James is known in 
history as the Earl of Murray. 

1 Grants of crown lands under the Privy Seal were techni¬ 
cally imperfect. A formal deed under the Great Seal was 
necessary for their completion. Till that was executed the 
grant was called inchoate. The Privy Seal was more properly 
applicable to gifts of personal estate and appointments to in¬ 
ferior offices under the Crown. 


20 


MARY STUART. 


CHAPTEE V. 

Great difficulty was found in dealing with church 
livings. The bishops and priests of the Bomish 
faith had still the legal right to the revenues ; but 
they feared to draw down danger by claiming them 
boldly. Many of the Protestant nobles had got hold 
of valuable rights which had belonged to the church. 
The Lord James himself, before the Queen gave him 
his earldom, held his chief living as Prior of St. 
Andrews. The estates of the crown had been so 
encroached on by improvident grants during Mary’s 
minority that the Queen’s revenues were inadequate to 
the state expenses, and taxation was not yet recognised 
in Scotland as a legitimate means of supporting the 
crown. The Protestant ministers also were in need of 
some provision. A compromise 1 was eventually made 
by which every Catholic benefice should contribute 
a third of its yearly value, to be paid to the crown “ for 
setting forward the common affairs of the country, and 
for the sustentation of the Protestant ministers.” The 
former possessors were to retain two-thirds to them¬ 
selves. Lethington, the Secretary of State, differed 
with Knox upon this matter, and each expressed his 
opinion in his own pithy way. Lethington declared 
1 22d December 1561. 


MARY STUART. 


21 


that after the ministers were provided for the Queen 
could not get at the year’s end “ what would buy her a 
pair of new shoon.” Knox 1 described the settlement as 

“ Twa parts to the devil, 

Ae part between God and the devil.” 

It was indeed an unfortunate arrangement, for it 
brought the Protestant clergy into continual conflict 
with the personal expenses of the Queen. 

Murray early took a most insidious measure to 
perpetuate his authority. In the Parliament of 1563 
he had an act passed called the Act of Oblivion. Its 
avowed and proper object was to insure an amnesty 
to all who had been engaged on either side in the dis¬ 
turbances which had been terminated by the Treaty of 
Leith. This act provided that everything that had 
been done contrary to law during that stormy period 
“ should be buried and extinct for ever”—but it con¬ 
tained a sweeping exception, that no man should have 
the benefit of the act unless he was “ worthy” of it; 
and to determine who were worthy a commission was 
appointed, a large majority of whom were of Murray’s 
own party. It required the certificate of six of these 
commissioners to entitle any man to the protection of 
the act, and of these six, three at least must consist of 
Murray himself and certain lords named in the act, 
every one of whom had been engaged in the insurrec¬ 
tion. It was further provided that the act should be 
unchangeable even by Parliament without the consent 
of every person who had “ or might pretend to have 
1 Knox, ii. 310. 


22 


MARY STUART. 


interest” in it! Such a law placed at the mercy of the 
dominant party every man who had opposed them 
during the struggle; for example, the act of Bothwell 
in intercepting the treasure which Elizabeth clandes¬ 
tinely sent to aid the insurgents might, in the absence 
of the clearest evidence of its source and destination, 
have been charged against Bothwell as a highway rob¬ 
bery, and he might have been sent to the gallows for it. 

But while Murray was strong enough to pass this 
extraordinary measure, which, under a specious though 
thin disguise, was so dangerous to all who opposed 
him, Knox in vain urged him, now that he had the 
power, to “ establish the religion f in other words, to 
pass in a constitutional manner the informal Act of 
1560, by which the Confession of Faith was sanctioned 
as the doctrine of the Church of Scotland. But Knox 1 
says, “ The Erledom of Murray needed confirmation, 
and many things were to be ratified that concerned 
the help of friends and servants,” and “ the matter 
fell so hote betwix the Erie of Murray and John 
Knox, that familiarlie after that tyme thei spack nott 
together more then a year and a half; for the said 
Johne, by his letter, gave a discharge to the said Erie 
of all farther intromissioun or cayr with his effaires. 
He maid unto him a discourse of thair first acquaint¬ 
ance ; in what estait he was when that first thei spack 
together in London; how God had promoted him, 
and that abuif man’s judgement; and in the end 
maid this conclusioun; but seeing that I perceave 
‘Knox, ii. 382. 


MARY STUART. 


23 


myself frustrat of my expectatioun, which was that 
ye should ever have preferred God to your awin affec- 
tioun, and the advancement of his truth to your singu¬ 
lar commoditie, I commit you to your awin wytt, and 
to the conducting of those who better can please you.” 

Mr. John Anthony Froude says—“ Murray’s noble 
nature had no taint of self in it.” 1 Mr. Froude is a 
very eminent writer of history in the present day; but 
John Knox is perhaps a better authority on this point. 
From that time Murray seems to have listened to 
darker counsels; and this agrees with the character 
wdiich Sir James Melville has left of him. “Murray 
himself,” he says, “ was at first of a gentil nature, weill 
inclined, gud with gud company, wyse with wyse com¬ 
pany, stout with stout company, and contrarywyse 
with others of the contrary qualities; sa that as com¬ 
pany chanced to fall about him, his busyness gaid 
rycht or wrang; and in his first uprising his hap was 
to leicht on the best sort.” 2 

In truth he now fell chiefly into the hands of 
Lethington, whose deep and designing policy was 
celebrated afterwards in these pungent lines— 

This world it wags, I wat not how, 

And na man may anither trow, 

And every man dois pluke and pow, 

And that the pure may finde— 

Our court it is decayit now, 

The cruikit leads the blinde. 

The Scottish Keformer had many collisions with the 
Queen also, and one of them occurred shortly before this 

1 Froude, viii. 223. 2 Melville’s Memoirs, Bannatyne ed. p. 222. 


24 


MARY STUART. 


time. He insisted on the penal law of 1560 being en¬ 
forced against the Papists. She pleaded with him ear¬ 
nestly for two hours, in Knox’s own words, “ no to pitt 
liaunds to punish ony man for using himsel in his reli¬ 
gion as he pleases.” 1 But Knox was obdurate, and 
Mary found herself obliged to yield. Accordingly, in 
the following month the Archbishop of St. Andrews, the 
Prior of Whithorn, and forty-six others, were arraigned 
before the High Court of Justiciary for celebrating the 
mass, and punished by imprisonment. Knox says this 
was done of craft. But he records that many said: 
“ See what the Queen has done; we’ll bear with the 
Queen;” and that when she went to open Parliament 
there were cries of “ God save that sweet face.” 

So great had Murray’s ascendancy become that he 
at last proposed to the Queen that she should lease the 
crown to him and Argyle, and he also sought to have 
himself legitimated. 2 Mary was startled by these pro¬ 
posals, and began to think of strengthening her position 
by marriage. 

1 Knox, ii. 371. See also her answer to the General As¬ 
sembly of the Church, Appendix No. III. 

2 From a fragmentary memorandum in Mary’s own hand (1565) 
in the State Paper Office (see Appendix No. X.) The Instruc¬ 
tions by Huntly, Argyle, Crawford, Eglinton, and thirteen other 
noblemen and prelates, for Mary’s vindication state that “he 
proponit to the Quene’s Majestie to have the Crown tailzeet, and 
himself to have the first place “ the desyrer of the said tailzie 
wald never consent ony way that her Majestie sould marry ony 
sic Prince as maid suit at hir Hieness thairfoir cullouring the samin 
upon the alleging of mony inconvenientis that might follow” 
(Goodall, vol. ii. p. 358). 


MARY STUART 


2 5 


CHAPTEE VI. 

Mary Stuart was indeed a winning, gentle-hearted 
woman, and the correspondence of her own time, before 
men’s hearts were hardened against her by passion, 
bears much testimony to her virtues. 

Throkmorton, the English ambassador in France, 
even during her war with England, wrote of “ her 
great wisdom for her years, her modesty, her judg¬ 
ment in the wise handling of herself and her matters.” 1 
And another of the English ambassadors, who became 
one of her deadliest enemies, says of her only a few 
months before her grievous calamities were brought 
upon her : “ There is one cheer and one countenance 
always in the Queen.” 2 Even after she was impri¬ 
soned in Lochleven Throkmorton wrote of her to Eliza¬ 
beth : “ The Lords speak of the Queen with respect and 
reverence.” 3 Lord Scrope said : “ She has an eloquent 
tongue and a discreet head, stout courage and a libe¬ 
ral heart.” 4 And Sir Francis Knollys reported of her : 
“ She desireth much to hear of hardiness and valiancy, 

1 Throkmorton, 1560 (Tytler, vol. vi. p. 233). 

2 25th December 1564, Randolph to Cecil. 

3 Throkmorton to Elizabeth, 14th July 1567 ; 18th July 1567 
(Bibl. Burch. 4126; British Museum, Cotton Coll., “Plut.” c. 
xii. b. 20). 

4 Scrope to Elizabeth, 29th May 1568 (Anderson, iv. 54). 


26 


MARY STUART. 


commending by name- all approved hardy men of her 
country although her enemies, and she concealeth no 
cowardness even in her friends.” 1 Lethington wrote of 
her soon after her return to Scotland : “ She doth de¬ 
clare a wisdom far exceeding her age.” 2 

After she was uncrowned Murray and his council 
recorded of her, that “ God had endowed her with many 
good and excellent gifts and virtues ;” 3 and he spoke of 
her in the same way in private. He made his will 
soon after Darnley’s death, and left the charge of his 
only daughter to the Queen. 4 

Sir James Melville, who was intimately acquainted 
with foreign courts, and was in close attendance on 
Mary’s person till she was dethroned, and who was 
driven from her side by Bothwell’s threats and violence, 
and so led to take part against her, yet wrote of her in 
his memoirs, long afterwards, that “ she was sa effable, 
sa gracious, and discreet, that she wan great estima¬ 
tion and the harts of mony, baith in England and 
Scotland, and myn amang the rest; sa that I thocht 
her mair worthy to be served for little profit than ony 
ither prince in Europe for great commoditie.” 5 

The Earl of Shrewsbury, after having had the cus¬ 
tody of the Queen of Scots during fifteen years of her im- 

1 Knollys to Cecil, 11th June 1568 (Anderson, iv. 71). 

2 Lethington to Cecil, 20th October 1561 (State Paper 
Office). 

3 Act of Council (Goodall, ii. 63). Murray to Scrope, 7 th 
Aug. 1568 (Anderson’s Collections , iv. 116). 

4 See Appendix No. XV. 

5 Melville, Bannatyne ed., p. 111. 


MAR Y STUART. 


27 


prisonment in England, was consulted by Elizabeth on 
the subject of a treaty for her liberation. She desired 
especially to know from him for her guidance whether 
Mary’s promises could be relied on if she were free. 
Shrewsbury’s answer was, “ I believe that if the Queen of 
Scots promises anything, she will not break her word.” 

The eloquent appeal by which Mary sought to 
stay the shedding of blood between Catholic and Pro¬ 
testant in France, 1 has a beauty and power of expres¬ 
sion, and a truth of feeling, which is not often found 
in the writings of princes. Her frequent and earnest 
pleadings with foreign powers for justice and mercy 
to her subjects cannot be read without interest and 
admiration. Her letters have been gathered from 
every corner of the earth, and every page of them 
marks the elegance and simplicity of her thoughts. 

If any man who has a prejudice against her will 
sit down and read that correspondence, in which she 
treats of all the incidents of life, he will rise from the 
perusal with a different notion, not of her mind only, 
but her heart. These are records which we can read 
now, exactly as they dropped from her pen, untainted 
by the bitterness of party, as so little else which con¬ 
cerns her was permitted to be. And we can see her 
there as she disclosed herself to her most confidential 
friends, whether in the highest business of state or in 
the trivial affairs of daily life.—Her library, too, was in 
some degree an image of her mind ; and the writings 
of the great Reformers were not excluded from it. 

1 Appendix No. IV. 2 As specimens see Appendix No. V. 


28 


MARY S1UAR1 . 


CHAPTER VII. 

Mary’s beauty, her accomplishments, her high quali¬ 
ties, her kingdom, and her prospect of succession to 
the English throne, brought nearly all the unmarried 
princes of Europe as suitors to her feet. Elizabeth 
was seriously alarmed for the consequences, for Mary 
might so have bestowed her hand as to have engaged 
the chief powers of the Continent to join her in contest¬ 
ing the English throne. The strength of the Catholic 
party in England was very great. It is recorded that 
of the whole of those who were fit to hold the com¬ 
mission of the peace in England, not more than a third 
could be relied on to resist a Catholic competitor. 
Elizabeth’s diplomacy was therefore earnestly directed 
to the exclusion of any continental candidate for 
Mary’s hand; and Mary made it clear enough that 
she was willing to be guided in this, and in everything 
else, by her cousin, upon one condition, that her right 
of succession to the crown of England should be 
publicly recognised, so as to secure it to her aud 
her posterity in the event of Elizabeth dying child¬ 
less. That concession Elizabeth often in words 
seemed half-persuaded to grant, but she uniformly 
explained it away, and till the last day of her life 
refused to settle who should be her successor. Even 
on her death-bed, forty years after this time, she would 


MARY STUART. 


29 


give no positive answer on the subject to her anxious 
counsellors; and it was only after she became speech¬ 
less that she was persuaded to make a sign, by which 
they understood, and upon which they acted, that 
Mary’s son was to be her successor on the throne. It 
has by some been thought an enigma in the life of a 
princess so provident as Elizabeth, that she should 
so long have resisted the entreaties of her subjects to 
protect them from the risks of a disputed succession. 
She kept her secret from fear of her life, apprehend¬ 
ing, and perhaps not without cause in those terrible 
times, that if her life were once declared the only 
barrier to the succession of a Catholic prince, some 
fanatic hand might have found the means to hasten 
her death. 

But she kept the succession dangling before Mary’s 
eyes, and thus led her to reject one suitor after another 
till her patience was exhausted. Elizabeth then inti¬ 
mated in very obscure terms that she would be content 
if Mary would wed with “the best in England.” Argyle, 
when he heard this, and thinking no one below the 
rank of sovereign a fit match for the Scottish Queen, 
sarcastically asked, “ Is the Queen of England, then, 
become a man ?” 

Now commenced an episode perhaps the most 
singular in the history of this singular woman. It is 
notorious that Elizabeth was deeply attached to her 
favourite the Lord Robert Dudley, whom she after¬ 
wards made Earl of Leicester. He had secretly married 
Amy Robsart, and Elizabeth’s wrath on the discovery 
of this step was well known. Amy Robsart’s death 


30 


MARY STUART. 


has always been regarded as a suspicious one. Mr. 
Froude, in his elaborate researches into the history 
of those times, has discovered letters of De Quadra, the 
Spanish ambassador in London, to his master the King 
of Spain, which throw grave doubts upon both Lei¬ 
cester and Elizabeth. If De Quadra’s statements are 
true, he was told by Cecil, Elizabeth’s Secretary of 
State, on the day before Dudley’s wife died, that the 
Queen and Dudley were thinking of destroying her, 
and that they had given out that she was ill, but that 
it was not true. 1 The next day Elizabeth herself told 
De Quadra that she was dead, or nearly so; and before 
he despatched his letter her death, which was instant¬ 
aneous, had become public. The common suspicions 
which attached to her death seem to have prevented 
the marriage which Elizabeth undoubtedly contem¬ 
plated with Dudley. 

Mary interpreted the enigmatical message of Eliza¬ 
beth as pointing to her cousin Henry Stewart, Lord 
Darnley, son of the Earl of Lennox, who after herself 
was the nearest heir of the English crown. Elizabeth 
truly meant her own favourite the Earl of Leicester; 
but whether she was in earnest or not nobody has ever 
penetrated. She was very slow to name her man. A 
sense of the ridicule which might attach to the pro¬ 
posal seems to have restrained her. She was suspected 
of putting Leicester forward mainly for the purpose 
of giving him such a standing in the eyes of Europe 
that she might have some excuse for marrying him 
herself. It was a delicate negotiation for all concerned. 

1 Froude, vol. vii. p. 279. 


MAR Y STUART. 


3 1 


Her most confidential ministers did not know what to 
make of it, and their consequent embarrassment can 
be easily traced in the correspondence. They obviously 
felt that if they were slack in recommending it they 
might be blamed for failure, and if too earnest or success¬ 
ful, they might incur the displeasure of their Queen by 
risking the loss of her favourite; and so their despatches 
are singularly balanced, blowing hot in one sentence 
and cold in the next. Cecil wrote to one of his confi¬ 
dants : “ To say the truth of my knowledge in these 
tickle matters, I can affirm nothing that I can assure 
to continue .” 1 Elizabeth hinted that she would settle 
the crown with Leicester if Mary took him. Lei¬ 
cester himself seems to have been puzzled. He sus¬ 
pected that she meant it as a trial of his constancy, and 
complained that it was a contrivance of his enemies to 
ruin him with both Queens. Mary saw the thing in its 
ridiculous aspect, and while she affected to treat the 
proposal with all due respect, enjoyed a quiet laugh 
at it in private. 

While this affair was under discussion the banished 
Earl of Lennox obtained leave to revisit Scotland and 
to sue for the restoration of his confiscated estates. 
He brought letters from Elizabeth recommending him 
strongly to Mary's kindness ; and his restoration was 
prompt and complete. He was speedily followed by 
his son, the Lord Darnley, a youth of nineteen, of 
gigantic stature, and one of the handsomest men of his 
time. He came by the advice of his mother, who was 

1 Cecil to Sir Thomas Smith, 30th December 1564 (Ellis’ 
Letters, 2d series, vol. ii. p. 294). 


32 


MARY STUART. 


Mary’s aunt, to sue for her hand and kingdom, with 
£700 in his pocket! His attentions were kindly re¬ 
ceived by Mary, and the affections of both soon be¬ 
came deeply engaged. He early attached to himself 
a remarkable man who was then in Mary’s service. 
His name was David Riccio. Darnley put [himself 
under his guidance, and they became inseparable. 
Riccio had come to Scotland some years before as secre¬ 
tary to the embassy from Savoy. He had previously been 
employed in a similar capacity by the Archbishop of 
Turin. The suspicions of the people in after-times 
charged him with being a secret emissary of the Pope; 
and his previous employment, the ostensibly inferior 
place which he at first accepted in Mary’s service, 
the astuteness of his counsels, and the near success of 
his schemes for a counter-revolution in the Roman 
Catholic interest, lend some probability to the sus¬ 
picion. No accredited agent of the Pope durst then 
have shown his face in Scotland. 

Riccio perceived at once the support which might 
be derived to his schemes for the restoration of the 
Romish Church, from an alliance between Mary and 
her cousin, who was of the same faith. Their marriage 
would unite an immense party in support of Mary’s 
claims on the English throne. Riccio therefore readily 
lent himself to Darnley’s wishes, and a love-match was 
speedily settled between the young cousins. For a 
time this was kept secret, for Mary wished to obtain 
the concurrence of her great lords before declaring her 
intentions. She accordingly convened them to ask 
their advice, and they unanimously approved of her 


MARY STUART. 


33 


9 


choice, the Earl of Murray joining with the rest, though 
not so cordially as Mary wished. 

Elizabeth soon got a hint of what was going on, 
and protested energetically against it. Mary’s loving 
brother, the Earl of Murray, who had been active in 
bringing back the house of Lennox, at once adopted the 
policy of England, and after a time of angry discussion, 
he laid down three principles for the Queen’s guidance 
—1st, That she must not take her own choice; 2d, 
That she must not marry a Catholic; 3d, That she 
must be farther advised by her- nobility. Mary 
resisted his propositions; and, to give himself stand¬ 
ing with the people, he demanded that she should 
become a Protestant, or at least abandon the mass. 
On this point he knew that she was unchangeable.— 
Elizabeth feared the accession of strength which Mary 
would gain in England by uniting with hers the claims 
of the next candidate for the English crown. Accord¬ 
ingly she ordered her ambassador to require the return 
of Darnley and his father to England, under pain of 
confiscation. They disobeyed, Darnley saying to the 
ambassador with simplicity that he found himself very 
well where he was. 

Elizabeth had Darnley’s mother within her reach, 
and sent her to the Tower. 

Retained as Murray was by Elizabeth’s pay, such 
f decisive demonstrations of her pleasure would no doubt 
have been enough to regulate his action. But he had 
reasons of his own. Darnley had been shown, on the 
map of Scotland, the vast possessions which Murray 

D 


34 


MARI STUART. 


liad obtained from his sister’s bounty, and the incau¬ 
tious youth had remarked that it was “ too much for a 
subject.” Mary was now in her twenty-third year, 
but when she made these grants she was a minor * and 
by the law of Scotland alienations of land made during 
minority, without a full price, are liable to be revoked 
for four years after majority. This was indisputable 
law for both prince and subject; and there was a far¬ 
ther law (then a century old 1 ) that grants of land 
annexed to the crown could not be effectually made 
by the sovereign at any age without the approval of 
Parliament. Darnley’s words were speedily carried 
to Murray; and his attention being thus called to the 
subject, he was not likely to overlook the consequences. 

This was an uncomfortable prospect. How far it 
swayed the unselfish Earl in recalling his consent to 
Darnley’s marriage, how far he was guided by his pur¬ 
chased duty to Elizabeth, how much by earnest zeal for 
the Protestant cause, it would be difficult to determine. 

Murray was not alone in this great question of the 
crown lands. Morton, Lethington, and many more 
had got similar grants, and were in the same predica¬ 
ment, They raised the cry of the Kirk in danger! 
The Queen was to be married to a Papist! Was he 
not the heir of that detested marriage which Lennox, 
his father, had purchased from Henry VIII., by offering 
him the Protectorate of Scotland ? Was it not through 
that very marriage that Darnley had pretensions to 
the English crown ? 

1 Act 1455, c. 41. 


If yC 

MARY STUART. 53 

\ 

\ 



CHAPTER VIII. 

Darnley’s conduct became very extraordinary. His 
pride and violence were intolerable. He demanded 
that the Queen should give him the matrimonial 
crown, which she had not the power to give with¬ 
out the concurrence of Parliament. He insisted that 
. he should at least be proclaimed king. And now 
ft we see this youth, whose £700 was all spent, and 
who was actually living on what he could borrow, 

* refusing to complete the marriage which was the 
k highest object of his ambition unless the Queen would 
r comply with his demand. This was inexplicable at 
the time ; but the truth is, that Riccio, fearing the 
efforts of the English party, had contrived to have 
them privately married in his own apartment, which 
he had fitted up as a chapel for the purpose. 1 It does 
not give us a very high opinion of Darnley to find 
him thus taking advantage of his position to extort ’ 
from Mary, against her better judgment, a kingly rank 
which she had not the power to give without violat¬ 
ing the constitution, and so strengthening the opposi¬ 
tion which was already gathering against him. But 
Darnley was impenetrable to reason; and when the 

1 An unpublished letter by Randolph to Queen Elizabeth on this 
subject will be found in the Appendix No. YI. 


36 


MARY STUART. 


Lord Justice-Clerk communicated to him that the 
Queen and Council thought it would be prudent to 
defer his inauguration as king, he actually attempted 
to stab him. In the end the Queen was driven to 
yield, but she did it most reluctantly, knowing how 
unsafe it was at such a critical moment to exceed 
her legitimate powers. The proclamation- accordingly 
went forth on the night before the public marriage, 
and was repeated immediately after it was solemnised, 
that Darnley was to have the title of king, and that 
his name was to be conjoined with hers in all public 
acts and documents. 

Darnley was no doubt much astonished to hear 
himself abused for religion. The English ambassador 
writes of him at that time as if he doubted whether 
he had any at all. He was willing to please both 
churches if he could. So he was married after the 
Popish form, but did not stay for the mass, and by 
and by went to hear a Protestant sermon. He had a 
great throne erected in St. Giles', chose a day when 
Knox was to preach there, and went in state. But 
if he had any doubts before, Knox soon removed 
them. He took the opportunity to tell his people 
that for their sins God had sent women and boys to 
rule over them ! His youthful majesty did not relish 
such a sample of Presbyterian doctrine; so he left 
the kirk in a rage, and summoned Knox before the 
Privy Council. Knox stuck to his text, adding some 
things that were not more palatable, and was pro¬ 
hibited from preaching till their Majesties should leave 


MAR Y STUART. 


37 


Edinburgh. An old writer of the time describes the 
incident in few words : “ The king was crabbit, and 
discharged John from preaching/' The provost had 
gone before the Privy Council with Knox. The foolish 
lad, riding on the tiptop of his kingly commission, sent 
an order to the town council, in their Majesties' names, 
to depose the provost, and elect another who was 
named in the message. The provost resigned;—the 
council did as .they were bid. They had not courage 
for the front of the battle; but they counselled Knox 
to resist. Things came to a fix between Knox and 
the king. Both parties seemed resolute; Mary perhaps 
enjoyed the joke, for Darnley was headstrong, and had 
acted against her advice. She could scarcely regret 
that his advances to the rival church should be so 
rudely repelled. She had the good sense to solve the 
difficulty by going to the country, taking her court 
and her laddie husband with her, which brought the 
prohibition against Knox's preaching to an end with¬ 
out any victory to either. 

His Majesty next came across the traces of a 
poacher. He issued his royal command to have the 
offender “ seized and brought before his Hieness in 
person, wherever he might beand he fulminated 
an edict that no man in broad Scotland should dare 
to carry a fowling-piece ! If he had been allowed to 
go on, he would soon have put an end to both crown 
and government. 

Elizabeth's dissatisfaction with the marriage soon 
produced serious consequences. She determined to 


38 


MARY STUART. 


stir up another insurrection in Scotland, and Murray 
became the head of it. His first scheme, which is 
proved by the reports of the English ambassador, 1 was 
to seize Darnley and his father, to deliver them up to 
Elizabeth, and to imprison Mary. The very place of 
her confinement was named. 2 It was to be Loch- 
leven. It is ominous of what was to happen in the 
future. 3 Mary got timely notice of this design, and 
escaped it by a hasty gallop, at an unexpected hour, 
past the place where it was intended to intercept her 
party. 

There was a darker plot against Darnley at this 
time. 4 Two letters remain in the State Paper Office 
by Randolph, the English ambassador—one to Cecil, 
the other to the Earl of Leicester. 

They give us the first hint of any design against 
Darnley’s life. In one he says : “ Lord Darnley must be 
removed or his enemies supported. Why shouldn't her 
Majesty (Elizabeth) do it by force V’ In the other he 
writes: “When they have said all, and thought what they 
can, they find nothing but that God must send him a 
short end or themselves a miserable life. To remedy this 
mischief, he must be taken away, or such as he hates 
find such support that whatsoever he intended to 
another may light upon himself." And then he asks 
his master, the prime minister of England, “ what sup¬ 
port may be expected if aught should be attempted , 

1 Randolph to Cecil, 4th July 1565, in Keith (Spott.), ii. 309. 

2 Tytler’s Enquiry , i. 377. 3 Strickland, iv. 146. 

4 3d June 1565. 


MARY STUART. 


39 


s0 

seeing the most part are persuaded that for this end” 
(the “ short end” that God was to send to Darnley) 
“ he was sent into this country.” ^ Here we have the 
most positive evidence that the idea of Darnley's 
assassination was suggested by one of Elizabeth's chief 
ministers to another eighteen months before he was 
murdered, even before his marriage with Mary was 
published, and while she is described in the same 
correspondence as so deeply attached to him that they 
account her bewitched. 

Three months later 1 Randolph wrote : “ Divers are 
appointed to set upon the Queen's husband, and either 
kill him or die themselves. If her Majesty (Elizabeth) 
will now help them, they doubt not but one country 
will receive both queens.” 

The Queen of Scots was afterwards (as every one 
knows) kept by Murray a prisoner in Lochleven on 
the pretence that she murdered her husband—this very 
Darnley. And while Randolph was thus pointing to 
that short end for him—which came shortly indeed— 
it must have been either marvellous foresight of Mur¬ 
ray, or complete accord between him and Randolph, 
that led him at the same time to be planning that 
imprisonment in Lochleven for which Darnley's death 
was subsequently made the excuse. 

Murray saw the advantage which he might derive 
from Darnley being proclaimed king without consent 
of Parliament. He was in want of an excuse for re- 

1 3d September 1565 (Calig. b. 10, f. 335 ; Goodall, i. 206). 


40 


MARY STUART. 


bellion. He at once denounced this step as unconsti¬ 
tutional, formed a confederacy with the Duke of 
Chatelherault, Argyle, and a powerful body of the 
nobles, and took up arms. On the public completion 
of the marriage, therefore, the young queen and king 
were at once involved in civil war. Mary acted with 
the resolution of her house, summoned the Earl of 
Bothwell and Huntly’s son and heir, who were in 
banishment, collected her forces, and gave the command 
to Bothwell, who was the only man of military repu¬ 
tation in her service. She w T as in greater danger than 
she knew of, for the secret papers* of the English court 
show that her chief ministers, Morton and Lethington, 
had an understanding with her enemies, and waited a 
favourable opportunity to betray her. Bandolph wrote 
to Cecil: “ Maitland is as far in this matter as any 
other. Of the same bond and league are the Earl of 
Morton and Lord Ruthven; they only espy their times, 
and make fair weather until it come to the pinch.” 2 
Randolph also wrote to Leicester hinting again at a 
scheme for seizing Mary and carrying her into Eng¬ 
land, though he was still living at Mary’s court as a 
peaceful ambassador. 3 And there is in existence a 
letter by Elizabeth to the Earl of Bedford instructing 

1 19th September 1565, Bedford to Cecil (Appendix to State 
Papers, Scotland). 

2 Randolph to Cecil, 12th October 1565 (vol. xi. 64 of State 
Paper Office, Scotland). Quoted in Chalmers, ii. 464, note t, and 
vol. i. p. 155, note. 

3 December 1, 1565 (State Paper Office, vol. xi. 93). Mait¬ 
land to Cecil, 9th February 1566 (Ibid. xii. 10). 


MAR V STUART. 


4i 


him secretly, and as if of himself, to furnish Murray 
with money and soldiers, taking care.not to let her he 
detected. 1 

BothwelTs energy disappointed these schemes. 
The people had no sympathy with the attempt to 
hinder the Queen from being married, and the rebels 
were finally driven to Dumfries, and thence into 
England. At this time 2 Murray wrote from Carlisle 
to Cecil entreating that support be hastened with all 
possible expedition, and reminding him that Queen 
Elizabeth was the principal instigator of their proceed¬ 
ings. But his defeat made a sudden change in her 
policy. Randolph, her ambassador at Edinburgh, had 
acted so clumsily in conveying aid to the rebels that 
he was found out. Foreign powers complained that 
she perpetually fomented troubles in Scotland; and 
she was not prepared for war. She had the Earl of 
Murray brought before her in presence of the French 
and Spanish ambassadors, obtained from him a collusive 

1 12th September 1565, Elizabeth to Bedford (State Papers, 
Scotland, Appendix); 19th September 1565, Bedford to Cecil 
(Do.); 19th September 1565, Bedford to Elizabeth (Do.); 28th 
September 1565, Bedford to Elizabeth (Do.); same day to 
Cecil (Do. do.); 5th October 1565, Bedford (Appendix, Do.); 
also 6th. 

2 14th October 1565 (State Paper Office). There is in the 
State Paper Office ^vol. xii. Scotland, No. 18 B, p. 453) a receipt 
by the Earl of Murray to the Earl of Bedford, for the Queen 
of England, of £7000, “to be emploit in the comon cause and 
action now in hands within this realme of Scotland, enterprisit 
by the nobilitie thereof for mainteynance of the true religion. 
Dumfries, 1st October 1565. (Signed) James Stewart.” 


42 


MARY STUART. 


acknowledgment on his knees that she never moved 
him to resist his sovereign, and immediately turned 
upon him and ordered him to get out of her presence 
for an unworthy traitor. Murray’s submission to this 
violent insult gained for him Elizabeth’s support for 
the rest of his life. She herself wrote to Mary with 
her own hand : “ I have communicated fully to Kan- 
dolph all that passed at my interview with one of your 
subjects (Murray), which I hope will satisfy you, wish¬ 
ing that your ears had heard the honour and affection 
which I manifested towards you to the complete dis ¬ 
proof of what is said that I supported your rebel sub¬ 
jects against you—which will ever be very far from 
my heart, being too great an ignominy for a princess 
to tolerate, much more to do l” 1 

1 Elizabeth to Mary Stuart, 29th October 1565 (Labanoff, 
7, p. 59). The original (French) is in Appendix No. VII. 


MARY STUART. 


43 


CHAPTER IX. 

Elizabeth’s disavowal was very mortifying to Ran¬ 
dolph. He had committed himself deeply to Murray 
and his friends, and they were ruined. They had been 
the chief sources of his influence in Scotland. He was 
also under a cloud for having managed affairs so ill. 
Elizabeth was not apt to forget what had brought such 
public exposure on herself. Randolph’s credit at home 
was shaken ; his influence in Scotland gone. He was 
in risk of utter disgrace. Hitherto he had to deal with 
ministers who were his secret allies, and in the pay of 
his mistress. Now he was thwarted by the counsels 
of Riccio, who loved neither him, his creed, nor his 
court, who cared for none of them, and whose Italian 
blood and training probably gave him some advantage 
in diplomacy, and certainly recommended him to the 
Catholic party in both qountries. Riccio still worked 
behind the scenes, but his hand was felt everywhere. 
He had done incalculable injury to the English interest 
and to Randolph; and there were rumours that he was 
to be placed in higher office. Randolph began to weave 
the threads of the conspiracy anew. Circumstances 
soon arose which enabled him to recruit its numbers in 
the most unlikely quarter, and to direct its action so 
as to put an end to all farther risk from the author of 


44 


MARY STUART. 


his disgrace, without changing the real object of the 
conspiracy—the restoration of the English party to 
permanent power. 

Mary was much elated by the humiliation of her 
rebels and the exposure of her rival’s insincerity. Her 
feelings towards her young husband are graphically de¬ 
scribed in a contemporaneous letter:—“ All honour that 
may be attributed unto any man by a wife he hath it 
wholly and fully; all praises that may be spoken of 
him he lacketh not from herself; no man pleaseth her 
that contenteth not him; and what may I say more ?— 
she hath given over to him her whole will to be ruled 
and guided as himself best liketh; she can as much 
prevail with him in anything that is against his will 
as your lordship may with me to persuade that I should 
hang myself.” And Darnley’s father wrote to his wife on 
19th December that the king, their son, continued “in 
good health and liking, and the Queen great with child.” 1 

The success of Kiccio’s policy strengthened his in¬ 
fluence with the Queen and the Catholic party, and 
encouraged him to proceed with his measures in favour 
of the Eomish faith. But these measures were tra¬ 
versed by the folly of Darnley, who, incapable of com¬ 
prehending the difficulties of Mary’s position, thought 
this a fitting time to revive his demand for a full matri¬ 
monial crown. While he was in this mind (in the 
end of January 1565-66) the French king sent him the 
order of St. Michael. It was necessary on his investi¬ 
ture that he should exhibit a banner bearing his coat 

1 Lennox to his wife, 19th December 1565 (Haynes, 443). 


MARY STUART. 


45 


of arms. The heralds considered that, as the crown 
had not been voted to him by Parliament, he was not 
entitled to display the royal arms. This led him to 
press his demand still more urgently. It was vain for 
Mary to plead with him that the time had not arrived 
when she could expect the consent of her Parliament 
to his wishes. In vain Riccio tried to persuade him 
that they had enough on their hands already. The 
English ambassador, on 24th January 1565-66, writes 
that Darnley demanded the crown-matrimonial with 
such impatience that the Queen repents she has done 
so much for him. He was pushed on by his father, and 
his discontent became the occasion of great evils. 

On the last day of that month Mary addressed a 
letter to the Pope. It is a modern discovery. She 
states in it that the enemies of their religion had 
hitherto hindered her efforts, but that some of them 
were now banished, others at her mercy. She antici¬ 
pates that their rage and extremity will drive them to 
desperate measures, and she entreats aid, temporal as 
well as spiritual, from his Holiness. Close on the de¬ 
spatch of this letter Clernault arrived from the. Conti¬ 
nent, bearing, for Marys concurrence, an engagement 
by all the Catholic princes of Europe for putting down 
heresy. This compact was carried into execution some 
years later, after Mary had ceased to reign; and though 
she cannot be held responsible for the interpretation 
that was given to it, the atrocious massacre of St. 
Bartholomew, with the general prescription of the 
Protestants on the Continent, afford a frightful com¬ 
mentary upon it. It was suspected at the time, and 


4 6 


MARY STUART 


there is too much reason to believe, that Mary set her 
hand to this dangerous document . 1 She also made 
fruitless efforts at this time to induce Bothwell and 
others to go with her to mass. An interesting letter 
on this subject will be found in the Appendix . 2 

Biccio was resolute in his schemes, but not impro¬ 
vident. He saw the wisdom of bringing back to the 
support of the crown the powerful house of Hamilton, 
and he advised that a. free pardon should be accorded 
to the Duke and the whole of his adherents, on con¬ 
dition that they should not return to Scotland without 
the Queen's permission. But this measure was most 
distasteful to Darnley’s father, the Earl of Lennox. He 
could not forget the time, twenty years before, when he 
was the fugitive, Hamilton the regent. He had borne 
many long years of poverty in exile; why should not 
the hated Hamiltons suffer the same penalty of their 
treason ? He would confiscate their estates and rise on 
their ruins. But Mary was of a gentler spirit. She 
was never unwilling to forgive those who had offended. 
She knew that the crown needed the friendship of its 
next heirs, the great ducal house. The Duke sued 
humbly ; and that the wheels of mercy might move 
more smoothly he richly anointed Biccio's palms . 3 The 
pardon was granted, but Darnley could not appreciate 

1 Randolph to Cecil, 7th February 1565-66 (Robertson’s 
History of Scotland , Appendix, p. 252). The statement in this 
letter, and in our text, derived from it, has been shown by Pro¬ 
fessor Wiesener to be an error. See Preface to this volume. 

2 Drury to Cecil, 16th February 1565-66 (Appendix hereto, 

No. VIII.) 3 Lab. vii. 70. 


MARY STUART. 


47 


its policy, and his father was blinded by hatred and 
cupidity. 

The excitement of these events seems to have been 
too great for Darnley. In February 1565-66 1 the Eng¬ 
lish governor of Berwick writes of him: “ All people say 
that Darnley is too much addicted to drinking. At a 
merchant’s house the Queen tried to dissuade him from 
drinking too much; he proceeded, and gave her such 
words that she left the place with tears—not strange 
to be seen. . . . These jars arise, amongst other 

things, from his seeking the matrimonial crown, which 
she will. not yield unto, the calling in of the coin 
wherein they were both; 2 and the Duke’s finding so 
favourable address hath much displeased both him and 
his father. His government is very much blamed, for 
he is thought to be wilful and haughty, and some say 
vicious, whereof too many were witnesses the other day 
at Inchkeith.” He had indeed become so insolent that 
even his father, according to Strype’s Annals , grew 
weary of his government and left the court. 3 

In the meantime Murray and his associates were 
assembled at Newcastle. He was in despair, reduced 
to sell his plate; and his letters express the extre- 

1 Keith, ii. 403, Spottiswoode edition. 16th Feb. 1565-66. 

2 This seems to have been a mistake of the writer. Shortly 
before this a new coin was issued, now commonly called the 
Crookston dollar, bearing the names of Mary and Henry. 

3 Sir William Cecil writes to Sir Thomas Smith, the English 
ambassador in France, on 1st September 1565: “The youngking 

s so insolent as his father is weary of his government, and is 
departed from the court” (MS. Lansd. 102, art. 64). 


4 8 


MARY STUART 


mity to which he was brought. He sent a valuable 
diamond to Riccio, 1 hoping to win his favour, without 
success; for Riccio, it would seem, could be bribed 
only to what his judgment sanctioned. 

The pardon of the Hamiltons was distasteful to the 
rest of the rebels. It detached from them the most 
powerful of their party, who were also the old enemies 
of Lennox. Randolph knew how to make good use of 
this, and so Darnley was drawn into common action 
with those who had so lately taken arms to oppose his 
marriage. Their united wrath was how concentrated 
on the head of the devoted David, and a door was thus 
opened for new political combinations, in which the 
interests of the House of Hamilton were to be disre¬ 
garded. Archibald Douglas, a relation of Morton’s and 
of Darnley’s, was very active in this negotiation. 

The banished lords kept up their correspondence 
with Mary’s chancellor and secretary of state, Morton 
and Lethington. These trusted servants of the Queen, 
thoroughly informed of Darnley’s urgent demands for 
power, of Lennox’s resentment against Riccio for the 
restoration of Hamilton, and in intimate relations with 
Randolph, now found their opportunity, and began to 
do their part in the conspiracy against their unsus¬ 
pecting mistress. Lethington at this time 2 wrote to 
Cecil: “ That there was nothing so far past but that all 
might be reduced to their former state, but that there 
was no certain way unless they chopped at the root” 

1 Melville’s Memoirs , p. 157. 

2 9th February 1565-66 (State Paper Office, xii. 10). 


MARY STUART. 


49 


That seems to point to the dethronement, if not the 
death, of the Queen. 

Morton’s ambiguous conduct attracted suspicion. 
He expected his dismissal from the office of chancellor, 
and it was understood that Eiccio was to succeed him. 
We are also told that he was seriously alarmed by a 
rumour which had got abroad, and was probably not 
ill-founded, that the Queen contemplated the revocation 
in the approaching Parliament of the Crown grants 
made during her minority. 1 

A great blow had become necessary to restore the 
English influence in Scotland, to bring back the ban¬ 
ished lords, save their estates, and check Eiccio’s 
schemes. Eandolph was spurred to action by a fur¬ 
ther exposure of his clandestine dealings with the 
rebels. Eiccio had the dexterity to get hold of a man 
who had actually carried a supply of gold from Ean¬ 
dolph to Murray, and Eandolph seems to have taken 
the alarm instantly. 

Parties in such a state of mind were not difficult 
to bring to an understanding. What ensued is best 
told in a letter which Eandolph sent to the Earl of 
Leicester for Elizabeth’s private eye, with injunctions 
not to communicate it even to Cecil, her secretary of 
state. It is the earliest intimation we possess of what 
was coming, and is dated only a few days before the 
exposure of Eandolph’s practices became so flagrant 
that he was publicly dismissed by Mary from her court. 

The modern disclosures of the State Paper Office 

1 6th March 1566, Eandolph to Cecil (State Paper Office, xii. 29). 

E 


5o 


MARY STUART. 


are absolutely appalling. Randolph's letter 1 says : “ I 
know that there are practices in hand, contrived by the 
father and son, to come by the crown against her will. 
I know that if that take effect which is intended, David, 
with the consent of the king, shall have his throat cut 
within these ten days. Many things grievouser and 
Wbrse than these are brought to my ears, yea things 
intended against her own person, which because I think 
better to keep secret than write to my lord secretary, 
I speak not of them but now to your lordship.” 

The conditions expressly settled among the con¬ 
spirators were, that the king was to have the crown- 
matrimonial, with a right of succession, and was to 
support “ the religion,” and David and others were to 
be “ taken away,” the very phrase which Randolph had 
used as to Darnley. 2 

Parliament had been summoned, and while this 
conspiracy was being matured, Murray wrote to Cecil 
from Newcastle praying Elizabeth's support: 3 “ The 
Parliament of Scotland,” he said, “ draweth nigh, and is 
fixed for the 12th of March. 'Tis chiefly set and pur¬ 
posely to be holden for leading the process of forfeiture 
upon me and the noblemen here with me. Wherefore, 
unless this conference shall with due time prevent the 
same, it will be found very difficult to revoke such 
matters, having once taken effect.” The earldom was 
in great danger. 

Berwick, 13th February 1565-66 (Wright, vol. i. p. 594; 
Tytler, vol. vii. 23 and 438). 

2 See p. 38. 3 15th January 1565-6. 


MARY STUART. 


5i 


Riccio was warned of liis peril. He Avas uneasy, 
but affected to laugh at it. He said the lords were 
like a flock of ducks, if you strike at one they will all 
get out of the way. “Na !” said his informant, “ ye’ll 
find their ways liker geese; if you meddle wi’ ane they’ll 
a’ flee at ye and pluck ye till there’s no a hair left.” 

Darnley was now in the hands of men who would 
have no scruple to use him for their purpose, and 
afterwards make him a scapegoat. In the moment 
of reconciliation they prepared a weapon for his 
destruction. They must interchange written engage¬ 
ments. And they gave him an engagement 1 that they 
should aid him in obtaining the matrimonial crown, 
and sustain him in possession if the Queen should die 
childless. But they took from the unwary youth a 
writing in which there was little ambiguity. It set 
forth that certain private persons, enemies to her 
Majesty, to him, and the nobility, and especially a 
stranger called David, were to be punished ; “ and in 
case of any difficulty, to cut them off immediately and 
slay them wherever it happens ;” 2 that “ it might chance 
that there be sundry great persons present who might 
gainstand the enterprise, wherewith some of them 
might be slain and because “ it might chance to be 
done in the presence of the Queen’s majesty, or within 
the palace of Holyrood House,” he, on the word of a 
prince, would take the same on him, and warrant and 

1 Goodall, i. 228. 

2 Sloane Colin., 3199; also Tytler, vii. 28. Br. Museum, 
Calig. ix. p. 212. In Goodall, vol. i. 266. 


52 


MARY STUART. 


keep harmless the earls, barons, and all others who 
should assist. This document is dated the 1st of 
March, more than a fortnight after the announcement 
to Leicester for Elizabeth. Darnley also bound himself 
by a writing which could bear inspection, 1 to procure 
the pardon and restoration of the rebels, and to main¬ 
tain them in the possession of their estates. The 
counter-bonds by Murray and his confederates were 
dated the next day. 2 

On the 6th of March the Earl of Bedford, in a letter 
from Berwick, countersigned by Randolph, 3 wrote to 
Secretary Cecil (the plan being so far advanced that it 
was now necessary to take him into the secret) : “ I 
have heard of late of a great attempt to be made by 
such advice as the Lord Darnley hath gotten of some 
noblemen in Scotland, whereby he thinketh to advance 
himself unto that which, by other means, he cannot 
attayne unto, whereby his credit may be the more in 
his countrie, and he hable to do more than to bear the 
bare name of a kinge, not having the due honor per- 
teyning to suche a dignitie, by which means also the 
noblemen that are now oute of their countrie may, 
without great difficulty, be restored, and in the ende 
tranquilitie insue to that countrie, and percase to both 
the reaumes (realms). And now at this present, I 
being fully informed by Mr. Randolphe of his and their 
whole intent, the same being now at the poynte to be 
put in execution, I thought good to use Mr. Randolph’s 

1 Goodall, i. 231. 2 Maitland Club Misc., vol. iii. p. 188. 

8 State Paper Office, vol. xii. p. 28. 


MARY STUART. 


53 


handes in the writing of this lettre, because I wolde 
not that any of my own should be privie to any part 
of that which we finde very needful to be kept verrie 
secrete, having both of us promised upon our hands 
that no other salbe privie hereunto but the Q. ma +i % 
my L. of Leicester, and you Mr. Secretharrie.” 1 They 
then proceeded to detail the plot in their letter, stating 
that there were privy to it in England, “Murray, 
Eothes, Grange, myself (Bedford), and the writer hereof 
(Bandolph); and in Scotland, Argyle, Morton, Boyd, 
Buthven, and Leddington.” They added : “ If persua¬ 
sions to cause the Q. to yoke to these matters do no 
good, they purpose to proceed we know not in what 
sorte. Yf she be hable to make any power at home, she 
shall be withborne and herself keapt from all other 
comfort than her own nobilitie. Yf she seek any 
forayne support, the Q. ma tle> , our Soverigne, shall be 
sought and sued unto to accept his and their defence, 
with offers reasonable to her majestie’s contentment.” 
And they enclosed copies of the deeds interchanged by 
the conspirators, taken, as they explained, by Randolph 
himself from the originals. These enclosures are kept 
with the letter in the State Paper Office. The engage¬ 
ment by the Earl of Murray and others to Darnley 
seems to be a draft in Randolph’s handwriting, with 
alterations in a different hand, and there is a note at 

1 The rest of this letter has been published by Mr. Tytler. It 
makes manifest the political character of the plot, but attempts 
to cover it by a suggestion of improper familiarity between Riccio 
and the Queen. 


54 


MARY STUART. 


the end, “Whatsoever you find writting in Roman hande 
is added to these articles by the lordes.” Darnley’s 
engagement to the lords seems to be the original, and 
bears his signature, “ Henry R.” It is not dated 
inside, but is docqueted “Po. Martii, 1565.” 

Randolph and Bedford on the same day wrote direct 
to Queen Elizabeth herself that a matter of no small 
consequence was intended, by means whereof it was 
hoped that my Lord of Murray might be brought home, 
and referred her for particulars to the letter to Cecil. 

The Parliament of Scotland assembled next day. 
The conscious Darnley refused to accompany Mary to 
open it. She could not understand his conduct. He 
went off to Leith to amuse himself. Mary wrote 
afterwards that “ the spiritual estate was placed in the 
ancient manner, tending to have done some good anent 
restoring the auld religion.” The Catholic prelates 
resumed their seats in Parliament, which they had for 
some years vacated. There was a real danger to the 
Protestant cause. 

The Lords of the articles having been chosen, 
whose province it was to arrange the business, the 
Parliament adjourned according to practice till the fol¬ 
lowing week. The day after Parliament met (8th 
March) Bedford and Randolph wrote from Berwick to 
the Earl of Leicester and Cecil, that the enterprise was 
growing to the desired point, and that Argyle and 
Morton were accorded. They said : “ To-morrow my 
L. of Murray and his will be in this toune; upon 
Sunday at night, at Edinburgh; but that which is in- 


MARY STUART. 


55 


tended shalbe executed before his coming there upon 
him whom you know.” 1 On the same day (8th March) 
Murray wrote from Newcastle to Cecil, that “he and 
the rest of his company were summoned home for the 
weal of religion.” 

Accordingly on the next day, Saturday the 9th of 
March 1566, about eight o’clock in the evening (just at 
the close of an eight days’ fast which had been ordered 
by the Kirk in Edinburgh), the palace of Holyrood was 
quietly surrounded by a strong body of conspirators, 
under the direction of the Lord Chancellor, the Earl 
of Morton. Mary was at supper with her half-sister 
the Countess of Argyle, in her little cabinet. Riccio 
was in attendance in the cabinet; also the commendator 
of Holyrood and one of the Beatons, Arthur Erskine, and 
Anthony Standen. All the passages were noiselessly 
secured and guarded by the conspirators, after which a 
message was sent to the King that all was ready. He, 
with Lord Ruthven and others, awaited the signal in 
his private room. He immediately passed up by his 
private stair to the Queen’s apartments, followed by 
Ruthven who was in armour. Riccio was seized in the 
Queen’s presence, dragged from the apartment, and 
barbarously murdered in the ante-room. He received 
fifty-six wounds; and the King’s dagger, which one of 
the conspirators had snatched from him, was left stick¬ 
ing in the body. It appears by a State paper of that 
time, recently discovered in the archives of the house 
of Medici, that the original scheme of the conspirators 
1 State Paper Office, Scottish Series, vol. xii. 


5 6 


MARY STUART. 


was to have executed their design when Riccio was at 
Seatoun, eight miles from Edinburgh, but that the 
vigilance of Lord Seatoun had prevented them. It 
had next been planned to seize and assassinate him 
when playing at tennis (as he was accustomed to do) 
with the King; but one of the conspirators had suggested, 
and all had agreed, that the plot should be executed in 
the very presence of the Queen (which indeed is pro¬ 
vided for in Darnley’s bond), in order that they might 
set abroad a story that the King caught him alone with 
the Queen in her bedroom, and had commanded him to 
be slain from jealousy. The infamous tale was widely 
propagated. Randolph was not improbably its author, 
for his letter to Leicester reporting the plot nearly a 
month before its execution, cloaks it with a suggestion 
of that kind, and there can be no doubt means were 
actually taken to work on the jealousy as well as the 
ambition of the feeble Darnley. But Darnley himself, 
a few days after the murder, declared to the conspira¬ 
tors that he would stake his life on Mary’s honour . 1 

The Queen’s deportment towards Bothwell up to 
this time must have been irreproachable, since the con¬ 
spirators could contrive nothing more plausible against 
her than to suggest an intimacy with poor David, 
whom all the historians describe as misshapen and “ ill- 
faured.” One who was well acquainted with him de¬ 
scribes him as in years, dark and very ill favoured, 
but of rare prudence, and very skilful in business . 2 

1 Kuthven’s Narrative in Keith’s Appendix, p. 128. 

2 Louis Guryon; Miss Strickland, iv. 264. 


MARY STUART. 


57 


Their changes of plan, however, account for the delay 
in executing the conspiracy beyond the time for which 
it was first announced by Randolph to Leicester. 

Mary was, at this time, in a very critical state— 
within three months she was to become a mother. 
This was well known at the English Court, for their 
ambassador had written some time before that he 
“ feared” it was true. The phrase indicates the feeling 
of his court on the subject. The alarm and excite¬ 
ment of the terrible tragedy which had been executed 
in Mary’s presence threw her for a time into great 
danger. During the struggle, one ruffian, Carr of 
Faudonside,had presented a cocked pistol to her breast; 
another stabbed Riccio over her shoulder while she 
tried to protect him; and a third threatened to “ cut her 
in collops and cast her over the walls.” Her own belief 
was, that the lives of herself and her unborn child were 
intentionally put in peril; and a paper recently dis¬ 
covered , 1 as well as the mysterious language of Ran¬ 
dolph’s letter to Leicester, leave no doubt that the 
Queen’s death was not excluded from the scheme of 
the conspirators. If Mary had died childless Darnley 
was the next heir to the English crown. And when 
we remember his position in that respect, it is not pro¬ 
bable that he would have been led into the conspiracy 
at all, or have separated himself from the interest of 
his wife, without at least knowing that Randolph was 
sure of the approval of his Court. 

Next day after Riccio’s murder (Sunday), Murray 
1 See the paper in Appendix to Tytler, vii. 439. 


58 


MARY STUART. 


appeared on the scene, as previously arranged; and, 
on seeing the Queen, professed the utmost distress, 
and actually shed tears in sympathy with her,—but not 
the less was she kept a prisoner in the palace. Mur¬ 
ray passed to the secret conclave of the conspirators, 
and took part in a discussion whether she should be 
executed or imprisoned for life. The conspirators 
settled at the meeting that she should be imprisoned 
till she should approve in Parliament all that had been 
done, and give the King the crown-matrimonial and 
the whole government; or else they firmly purposed 
to have put her to death or detained her in perpetual 
captivity . 1 The law which denounced death for three 
celebrations of the mass could have been made the 
excuse. The General Assembly of the Kirk had 
sent an address to the Queen a few months before, 
requiring that that law should be enforced, not only 
against the subjects, but “ in the Queen’s Majesty’s 
awin person, with punishment to all offenders .” 2 

Darnley, at the desire of the other conspirators, 
issued a royal proclamation in his own name, ordering 
all who had come to attend the Parliament to quit 
Edinburgh immediately. He, in fact, assumed the 
power of dissolving Parliament, an act of the highest 
treason. But he began soon to discover that he had 
not the weight with the conspirators which he expected, 
and that small attention was paid to his wishes, even 

1 Mary’s letter to the Archbishop of Glasgow, 2d April 1566 
(see Appendix No. IX.; also Keith, 332; Tytler, vii. 40). 

2 Appendix No. III. 


MARY STUART. 


59 


in the placing of guards and other arrangements at 
the palace. Mary seized an opportunity to speak 
with him alone. She had had the presence of mind, 
at the earliest moment, to send for and secure the 
confidential papers of which Eiccio had the charge; 
and if Eiccio was really a secret agent of the Church 
of Eome, she probably now exhibited some of these 
papers to her husband that he might understand the 
truth. We can conceive the revulsion which such a 
disclosure would create in the mind of one who had 
been bred in the Catholic faith. Something very 
extraordinary must have passed at this conference 
between the King and Queen, for from that moment 
he joined the Queen in countermining the conspirators. 
It was essential to the safety of both that he should 
appear to continue his relations with them; and he so 
won their confidence that they at last withdrew the 
guards on his undertaking the charge of the Queen. 
This was accomplished on the second night after the 
murder; and on that night he and Mary made their 
escape secretly from the palace, and fled together to 
the castle of Dunbar. The Earls of Bothwell and 
Huntly, who alone of all the lords in the palace 
remained faithful to their duty, had escaped through a 
window on the night of the murder. They were no 
doubt two of the “ sundry great persons" referred to 
in Darnley’s bond as not unlikely to gainstand the 
enterprise and be slain. With extraordinary energy 
they levied a considerable power after their escape, to 
rescue the Queen. Mary and her husband thus found 


6o 


MARY STUART. 


themselves at once at the head of a force which the 
conspirators could not resist; and as she advanced on 
Edinburgh they broke up in confusion and fled for their 
lives. Most of them betook themselves to Berwick, 
where they reported the minutest particulars of the 
murder to Elizabeth’s officers. By them the whole 
details were transmitted direct from the mouths of the 
murderers to Elizabeth and her ministers, who were 
expressly told that these details were given “ by the 
parties’ self that were there present and assistersand 
there was added, in a postscript, a full list of the con¬ 
spirators, with this recommendation of their good 
service :—“ My Lord of Murray, by a special servant 
sent unto us, desireth your honour’s favor to these 
nobill men as his dear friends, and such as for his sake 
hath given this adventure .” 1 Bobertson, in his History 
of Scotland' 2 has quoted the greater part of this letter, 
and refers to the original, but he has missed this 
important passage, which discloses that Murray was 
the real head of the conspiracy, and the chief organ of 
communication between the conspirators in England 
and the English Government. This is the more 
singular, because the postscript is very prominently 
placed in the original, between the signatures of Bed¬ 
ford and Randolph ; and the letter itself is marked at 
the top as “ touching the death of David Rizzio, and 
Murray s privity therein .” Murray made reports 

1 Bedford and Randolph to Privy Council, 27th March 1566 
(Ellis’s Original Letters , First Series, vol. ii. p. 207-220). 

2 Robertson’s Appendix, No. 15, p. 253. 


MARY STUART 


61 

direct to Elizabeth, Leicester, and Cecil, in regard 
to the whole business. 

Queen Elizabeth could not have been accounted 
guiltless, even if she had remained passive, merely con¬ 
cealing from her royal sister the bloody tragedy which 
was being prepared for her with the knowledge of the 
English ambassador . 1 But she supported Randolph 
vehemently, protected the assassins, trafficked anew 
with the royal succession, till she got them restored , 2 
supplied Murray with money (several thousand pounds), 
immediately before and immediately after Riccio’s 
death, and took the first opportunity to gratify her 
vindictiveness against Darnley by open insult . 3 

Further light is thrown on the true cause of Riccio’s 
murder by the fact, which is not well known, that on 
the same night on which he was slain, a Roman Catho¬ 
lic friar, John Black, one of the Queen’s preachers, was 
assassinated in his bed. This friar had made himself 
prominent in disputation with Willock the Reformer. 
He had been waylaid and abused on the streets of 
Edinburgh, in the previous year, by a gang of four, 
who were tried for it ; 4 and every one of that gang 
fled and was outlawed for the murder of Riccio . 5 

1 Randolph to Cecil, 8th March 1566 (Cal. Scot. xii. 31). 

2 Elizabeth to Bedford, 2d April 1566 (State Papers, Scot¬ 
land, Appendix). 

8 Cal. Scot. State Papers, Appendix, 16th March 1566. 

4 Pitcairn, vol. i. 475, and 484, 485. 

6 Knox’s History , Woodrow edition, vol. ii. p. 593. Bedford 
to Cecil, 18th March 1565 (State Paper Office, vol. xii. p. 545) 
—“ David, as I wrote to you in my last letter, is slayne, and at 


62 


MARY STUART. 


The King now denied everything to Mary, except 
that he had licensed Murray and others to come home. 
He even committed himself so far as to put out a pro¬ 
clamation 1 repudiating all connection with the conspi¬ 
racy. For his own sake, therefore, he concealed Murray’s 
secret bond. Murray became aware of this. He had 
fled with the rest, but on finding that the Queen was 
still ignorant of his share in the conspiracy, he addressed 
himself to her for pardon, and her indignation was so 
roused against Morton and those who had been engaged 
in the atrocious deed, that she readily forgave all who, 
as she supposed, had merely taken arms against her 
during the previous summer. How Murray and his 
confederates at the English Court must have chuckled 
when they found that Mary, to be avenged on the 
authors of Riccio’s murder, thus unwittingly gave par¬ 
don, and eventually office, to its chiefs ! 2 

She took the precaution, however, to except from 
the pardon any act of treason directed against her own 
person; and hence Murray, though received into confi- 

the same tyme was left slayne by like order one Friar Black, a 
ranke Papist and a man of evil life, whose death was attempted 
by other befoir.” Randolph on the same day says of 

Black, “ he was admitted for one of the Q.’s chief preachers, and not 
long since gave in a supplication in his own name and brethren 
to have a place erected for them. He was above 2 months past 
met late in the night suspitiouslie, and being known he got 2 or 
3 blows with a cudgell and one with a dagger that was like to 
have cost him his life.” 

1 Goodall, i. 280. 

2 Randolph to Cecil, 21st March 1566 (Tytler, vol. vii. p. 429). 


MARY STUART. 63 

dence, never felt himself entirely safe till she was in 
Lochleven. 

We get some idea of Riccio's power in the State 
when we consider the effect of his death. It was like 
a change in the kaleidoscope. But it was a change of 
persons, rather than of purposes. The conspiracy went 
on; the actors exchanged places. Murray and his im¬ 
mediate followers were now in the Queen's palace and 
councils; Morton, Lethington, and their comrades had 
gone into banishment. Their clandestine correspond¬ 
ence was kept up. Both parties were in secret com¬ 
munication with the English Court. Elizabeth ordered 
Morton to quit England, and winked at his remaining. 
The ultimate aim of the conspiracy, the seizure of the 
supreme power in Scotland, still remained to be accom¬ 
plished. Darnley's betrayal had ruined their cause in 
the moment of success, and brought into jeopardy the 
lives and fortunes of the great body of the conspirators. 
It purchased for him their undying hatred; and when 
we remember the desperate character of the act with 
which their hands were still reeking, and the schemes 
for giving him a short end which had been thought of 
at the time of his marriage, we can hardly doubt that 
from that hour Darnley was devoted to destruction. 
If Mary herself could now be made the scapegoat, just 
as they had planned to make him the means of her 
destruction, and Bothwell (who had done them so much 
harm, and whom they had hitherto failed to corrupt) 
be used as the instrument of her ruin and their safety, 
their triumph might still be complete. Eighty of them 


6 4 


MARY STUART. 


were fugitive with Morton, a majority of whom had 
each thrust his dagger into Riccio’s body, and among 
them was Morton’s cousin, Archibald Douglas, who 
becomes prominent hereafter. The men, the victims, 
and the plan of the grand catastrophe are already com¬ 
ing into view. 


MARY STUART 


65 


CHAPTER X. 

Riccio had incurred the private hatred of not a few of his 
assassins. The manner of his death, and the multitude 
of his wounds, are plain indications of gratified revenge. 
But it would he unjust to suppose that the conspirators 
were wholly moved by personal considerations. Behind 
the immediate actors there were others who had loftier 
motives; and there were not wanting grand ideas 
to mislead the imagination, and, in their own eyes, even 
to hallow the crime. 

The Reformation in Scotland had made immense 
progress in Mary’s reign. After she came to the throne 
it was for the first time permitted to read the Scriptures 
in the common tongue. The seed thus sown fructified 
and grew. And though the Protestants were afterwards 
proscribed and persecuted under the Queen-Regent, 
her mother, the great body of the people gradually 
imbibed the doctrines of the Reformation.—The force 
of opinion had become more powerful than positive 
law. We have seen the Catholic prelates, with the 
law and the Sovereign on their side, excluding them¬ 
selves till now from Parliament, and yielding a share 
of their revenues to the Protestant ministers. Power 
had passed to the other side, and unhappily there 
passed with it the spirit of persecution, too often the 
child of power when it feels itself insecure. 


66 


MARY STUART. 


All the progress which had been made was brought 
into peril by Eiccio, and it was thought impossible to 
stay him without violence. One section of the con¬ 
spirators seems to have contemplated that he should be 
seized and brought to trial, not that he should be 
assassinated. Knox was probably one of these. In 
Eandolph’s reports 1 he is named as “consenting to the 
death of David.” If he was truly privy to the scheme 
(which has been much controverted), he no doubt ex¬ 
pected a less passionate execution . 2 That he looked to 
Eiccio’s death for relief to the Protestant cause is more 
than probable. The week of fasting 3 which preceded 
the catastrophe was regarded by some as giving to the 
event the solemnity of a providential visitation. During 
that week Knox took occasion to preach from the Old 
Testament examples of God’s sudden judgments on the 
enemies of his people ; and when the conspirators 
broke up and made their escape on the approach of the 
royal forces, he felt himself sufficiently compromised 
to secure his safety by flight , 4 nor did he venture to 

1 Randolph to Cecil, 21st March 1565-6 (State Paper Office). 

2 Morton and Ruthven, in their report to Cecil, 27 th March 
1566, say, as to Riccio’s death, that “ in the manner of execution, 
following the King’s advice, they did more than was deliberated ” 
(State Paper Office). 

3 “ Saturday, 2d March 1565-6.—The ministers ordered a 
fast from Saturday 8 hours afternoon to Sunday 5 hours at 
evening, and then to take but bread and drink in a sober 
manner, and the same next Sunday, for the lords now banished.” 

“ 9th March.—Saturday at 8 hours eve, Riccio cruelly slain ” 
(Diurnal of Occurrents). 

* “ 17th March 1565-6.—The haill lords, committers of the 


MARY STUART. 


67 


enter the capital again till Mary was dethroned. But 
whatever may have been his ideas, the suddenness 
of Biccio’s death could not have been unexpected by 
the chief conspirators, for we have seen that it was 
deliberately provided for in Darnley’s bond. 

Lethington was a far-sighted statesman. He recog¬ 
nised the impolicy of perpetuating two separate govern¬ 
ments in one small isle, to watch and weaken each 
other, when, by uniting, they might become almost 
invulnerable. He saw that the genius of the people, 
and the similarity of their language and faith, per¬ 
mitted them to amalgamate. The union of England 
and Scotland was the pole-star of his life. It was not 
accomplished in the Crown till half a century later. It 
took another century before the two countries had a 
common Parliament. Even at this day their amalgama ¬ 
tion is not perfected by a common code of law, or a com 
mon system of administrative government;—so slow 
has been the growth of the conception which Lethington 
favoured. His scheme explains much that is apparently 
inconsistent in his history. He would have been con¬ 
tent with Elizabeth to rule the two kingdoms. He 
could have been content also with Mary if he could have 
secured her succession to the English crown. At this 
juncture he would have been content with Darnley, 
looking to the same object. A few months later he 

slaughter, and the Lords that were banished before, departed 
from Edinburgh toward Linlithgow with dolorous hearts. John 
Knox likeways departed at two hours afternoon.” 

“ 18th March.—King and Queen, with 2000 men, returned 
to Edinburgh” (Diurnal of Occurrents). 


68 


MARY STUART. 


took the lead anew in a negotiation for Mary’s succes¬ 
sion. That having failed, he accepted Janies as the 
heir of both thrones. And again, thinking Janies in¬ 
secure, he died a champion of Mary’s rights. 

Cecil, though not early trusted with the secret of 
the conspiracy, had come to share Lethington’s views 
as to the union of the kingdoms; but he looked for a 
Protestant throne, and rejected Mary throughout. 

Murray’s ambition, chastened by misfortune, aimed 
now at the substance without seeking all the trappings 
of power. He had from the first zealously embraced 
the cause of the Eeformation. He possessed a character 
for blunt honesty which does not altogether agree with 
some of the things which we now know of him. But 
he must have possessed some high qualities to have 
gained and kept the confidence of so many of those 
with whom he acted. And we may be permitted to 
judge the characters of public men in revolutionary 
times rather by the general tendency of their schemes 
than by isolated acts. 

The nation advanced, half-unconsciously, resolute to 
retain its freedom, excusing the incidents of the struggle 
for sake of the cause, and perhaps not perceiving that 
the safety of the Crown was involved.—Mary sus¬ 
tained the battle, fully alive to its imminent perils. 

Cecil at this time wielded the whole power of 
England. Murray had long been the mainspring of 
political action in Scotland. Their alliance was of old 
standing. It was Cecil who, six years before, wrote of 
the probability of Murray becoming king; but he now 


MARY STUART. 69 

spoke of it no more. It would have barred the scheme 
of union. When these two had last met, Murray was 
in banishment for an attempt by force of arms to 
subvert his sisters throne. Cecil had been her bit¬ 
ter and persistent enemy all her life. That had long 
been disguised; but an accident disclosed it. A spy, 
named Bokeby, professing to be sent by the Catholic 
party in England to concert an insurrection for the 
purpose of dethroning Elizabeth, came to Mary. She 
ordered him to be seized and searched : Cecil's instruc¬ 
tions were found in his pocket ! 1 The character of 
this gentleman may be guessed from the circumstance, 
that next year his brother made a proposition to one 
of Elizabeth's ministers to murder Bothwell. Cecil's 
safety made it necessary, from the part he had taken 
towards Mary, that by some means she should be 
excluded from the succession to the crown of Eng¬ 
land. Murray's projects made it equally necessary 
that she should be governed by him, or driven from 
the throne of Scotland. The conspiracy for Biccio's 
death, and the palace revolution which restored Murray 
to power, had followed rapidly on the last interview 
between these two men; and we have seen that they 
were in intimate communication on the subject of it, 
and that Murray commended the perpetrators to Cecil's 
favour. They then knew of Mary's condition, her 
prospect of being soon a mother, and could not have 
overlooked the great probability that such a violent 
and bloody catastrophe, executed in her presence, 

1 State Papers, vols. xii. 81 ; xiv. 43. 


70 


MARY STUART. 


might involve the lives of both mother and child. 
That event was not unprovided for . 1 Their scheme 
then was to make Darnley their puppet-king for his 
lifetime, ruling the state in his name. He was too 
weak to be dangerous to them, and his secret bond for 
the murder could have been used as a check on him, 
or, if necessary, might be made an excuse for his de¬ 
struction. Their engagement to him bore that they 
were to maintain his right to succeed the Queen if she 
died childless. This was a blow to the Duke, her legiti¬ 
mate heir. But they had a more important object; for, 
on the death of Mary without children, Darnley, as we 
have seen, was the next heir to the crown of England; 
and, as with Lethington, however difficult it may seem 
to reconcile the apparent changes in the joint policy of 
Cecil and Murray, there seems to be one key to nearly 
the whole of it—it was planned to secure the direction 
of the person—Mary, or Darnley, or Mary’s child—who 
was likely to be the next heir to the throne of England. 
Darnley’s defection, after Riccio’s murder, had discon¬ 
certed their schemes. We shall find them resumed 
hereafter, but they could never trust him again. They 
had found a barrier where they hoped to secure an 
instrument. Yet, if he lived, he was almost sure to 
become their master. Should Mary succeed to the 
English crown, he, as her husband, must have weight 
in the government. If a child of Mary’s should suc¬ 
ceed, Darnley would be his natural guardian. Should 
Mary die childless, he was himself the next heir. 

1 Maitland Club Miscellany, vol. iii. p. 188. 


MARY STUART. 


7 i 


CHAPTER XI. 

Two months after Riccio’s murder, Murray sat with 
smooth face at his sister s Council board, and joined in 
a resolution that “justice should be sharply execute on 
all who were of the devise counsel or committing of 
the slaughter of Davie.” What must have been his 
feelings when these words were written before his face, 
where they still remain, in the records of the Privy 
Council! 

The execution of this resolve was in the hands of 
treacherous agents. There can be no doubt that Mary 
was earnest that justice should be done on those who 
were guilty of Riccio’s murder. But a full month 
afterwards, the Council minutes record that “ the King 
and Queen can as yet perceive little or no execution of 
their orders as to the criminals—nay, that some of 
them spare not to remain within the realm .” 1 The 
confederates in truth had held the appointment to all 
public offices for many years; the Crown had scarce a 
servant who was not at their devotion. And while 
there was no want of will in the Queen, there was a 
complete paralysis of justice. 

The Earl of Both well, during the six months which 
had elapsed since his recall from exile, had twice saved 
1 8th June 1566. 


72 


MARY ST [/ART. 


the Crown. These important services amply account 
for his future weight in the country. Up to this time, 
at least, he had received small favour at the hands of 
Mary. His exploit in intercepting the treasure which 
the Queen of England transmitted secretly to aid the 
rebels in 1559, involved him in bitterness with Eliza¬ 
beth as well as Murray and other leaders of that in¬ 
surrection. Arran made it the occasion of a personal 
quarrel, and Bothwell challenged him to combat. 1 
They were not permitted to fight, but bad blood con¬ 
tinued between them for several years, and in conse¬ 
quence of it Mary forbade Bothwell to approach the 
Court. 2 In the end, Knox, at BothwelTs request, under¬ 
took the office of peace-maker, and they were reconciled. 3 
Knox writes with singular tenderness and respect of 
Bothwell, and records with clannish pride that “ his 
grandfather, gudsire, and father had served the Both- 
wells, and some of them had died under their standards.” 
A few days after the reconciliation, Arran rushed into 
the presence of the Queen, and avowed that Bothwell 
had proposed to him a scheme for seizing her person and 
carrying her to Dumbarton. 4 This was three years before 
Riccio’s murder. Arran was supposed to have a romantic 
passion for Mary. She ordered both him and Both¬ 
well into custody. 5 Arran soon became insane, and 

1 The challenge and answer (very curious) will be found in 
the Appendix No. XI. 

a 26th August 1561 (Appendix to State Papers). 

8 March 1562. 

* 1562, 7th April (Randolph, State Papers, Scot. App.) 

5 April 1562. 


MAR Y STUART. 


73 


it remains a mystery whether his charge against 
Both well was true, or whether it arose from the fancies 
of a disordered mind. Subsequent events make it pro¬ 
bable that such a scheme had even thus early been in 
Bothwell’s contemplation. Arran was' confined for 
many years; but Both well, after being a prisoner from 
April till the end of August, effected his escape, and 
fortified himself in his castle of Hermitage. When he 
saw the fate of Huntly he surrendered his castle and 
took refuge in England. He now fell into Elizabeth's 
hands, and she revenged the seizure of her treasure 
by keeping him a prisoner. After a long detention, he 
was released, and went to the Continent. Soon after 
Darnley arrived in Scotland Bothwell ventured to re¬ 
turn. Mary's displeasure at this step is mentioned in 
a letter of the English ambassador . 1 Bothwell, in the 
bitterness of exile, had made use of very disrespectful 
language in regard to both queens. He said of Eliza¬ 
beth, in very coarse words, that she was no better than 
she should be . 2 And he said something equally or, 
if possible, more offensive in regard to Mary. His 
mildest phrase was that “ both Queens would not make 
one honest woman." These were offences which no 
guilty woman was likely ever to forgive. Bothwell was 

1 “ The Queen misliketh Bothwell’s coming home, and hath 
summoned him to undergo the law or be proclaimed a rebel. 
He is charged to have spoken dishonourably of the Queen, and to 
have threatened to kill Murray and Ledington. David Pringle, 
one of Bothwell’s servants, will verifie it ” (Kandolph to Cecil, 
15th March 1565 ; Spottiswoode edition of Keith, ii. 266). 

2 Kandolph, 31st March 1565 (State Papers, Scot. Appendix). 


74 


MARY STUART. 


summoned in 1565 to answer for his treasonable designs 
against the Queen s person, and the full details of his 
proposal to seize her by violence are recorded in the 
official documents of that period. 1 The circumstance 
that he ultimately carried out a design of this de¬ 
scription five years after his proposal to Arran, makes 
this part of his history (which is little known) pecu¬ 
liarly interesting in its bearing upon Mary's conduct in 
regard to him. Bothwell did not present himself at 
the trial, alleging fear of Murray. This was a short 
time before Mary's marriage to Darnley. He then fled 
anew. The anger of his sovereign pursued him, and 
interest was made through the English ambassador to 
prevent his reception in England. 2 He betook himself 
to France, and remained there till Murray's insurrection 
in September 1565 compelled Mary to call to her aid 
all whom she could reconcile, and she then gave him a 
pardon. A few days before Eiccio’s murder (February 
1566), Bothwell was married in the Queen's palace, 
with much rejoicing, 3 to the young and accomplished 
sister of the Earl of Huntly, the Queen's cousin; 4 and 
the Queen gave her her wedding dress. 

Darnley's folly in joining the conspirators, on the 
occasion of Eiccio's murder, had wrung Mary’s heart; 

1 See Summons of Treason against Bothwell (May 1565) in 
Appendix No. XII. 

2 See Letter from Randolph to Cecil, 15th March 1565, in 
Appendix No. XIII. 

3 “ 1565-6, Feby. 24.—Bothwell married to Jean Gordon in 
Abbey Kirk with great magnificence ” {Diurnal of Occurrents). 

4 February 1565-6. See Appendix No. VIII. 


MARY STUART 


75 


but it was so prodigious that, after the first burst of 
grief, she saw clearly that he was the dupe and tool of 
others. Her respect for him could not be otherwise 
than shaken; but her affection preserved him from the 
punishment which he richly merited. And for his sake 
she spared his father also, whom she justly blamed most; 
but she never permitted him to enter her presence again. 
Considering that she had restored him for treason only 
twelve months before, and that he had now repeated 
the offence under such aggravated circumstances, and 
had beguiled his son into the same evil course, bringing 
misery upon her household, her forbearance can be at¬ 
tributed only to surviving tenderness for her husband. 
Nor was this from ignorance of the full extent of his 
guilt. One of the first means taken by the conspira¬ 
tors to revenge themselves on Darnley was to con¬ 
trive that his secret bond for the murder of Eiccio 
should be shown to the Queen. This placed his life in 
her hands. She was deeply hurt by the reference 
which it made to her own person; but nothing could 
induce her to permit Darnley or his father to be brought 
to justice. It would rather seem that she had the ten¬ 
derness to spare him the knowledge that this document 
had been disclosed to her. It did not include the 
names of the other conspirators. It spoke of them in 
general terms as “ the nobles and others.” It could 
therefore be shown to the Queen without disclosing the 
names of Murray and those who had escaped suspicion. 
The writing to which their signatures were attached 
was of course in Darnley’s hands; but he had denied 


76 


MARY STUART. 


the whole matter to the Queen. When, therefore, he 
saw Murray restored and sitting at the Council board, 
he well knew how much the Queen’s confidence was 
abused; he chafed under it; and he warned her of it. 
She could not believe it, and it would seem that he 
could not venture to produce the evidence of it, which 
in his duplicate probably bore his father’s signature 
among the rest. She was tod just to act without proof ; 
and though we know that Both well joined in the King’s 
views regarding both Murray and Lethington , 1 Murray 
kept his ground, and wrote to Cecil that his reconcilia¬ 
tion with his sovereign was in good case . 2 

While these discussions were proceeding the Queen 
gave birth to a son , 3 who afterwards, as James I., united 
on his head the crowns of England, Ireland, and Scot¬ 
land. Sir James Melville was instantly despatched to 
convey the intelligence to Queen Elizabeth. She was 
struck down by it, exclaiming—“ The Queen of Scots 
has a fair son, and I am a barren stock!” But next day 
she received the'messenger with affected rejoicing. 

1 See Morton’s letter to Forster, July 1566 (vol. xii. No. 89, 
State Papers), in Appendix No. XIY. 

2 llth July 1566 (vol. xii. No. 85, State Papers). 

3 19th June 1566. 


MARY STUART. 


77 


CHAPTER XII. 

The auspicious birth of their son and heir, Prince 
James, did much to restore a good understanding be¬ 
tween Mary and her husband. Still, Darnley was 
uneasy at the presence of Murray, and talked so wildly 
to the Queen of his resolution to have that nobleman’s 
life, that she found it necessary to speak to him with 
severity, and also to put Murray on his guard . 1 She 
brought them together : Darnley apologised, and she 
tried to make peace between them. But Darnley 
feared that Murray’s influence would procure the pardon 
of the other conspirators; indeed Murray seized the 
occasion of the young Prince’s birth to urge a general 
amnesty. Mary was not unwilling: she never was 
deaf to a cry for mercy: but Darnley resisted the 
proposal vehemently, and with success. He had in¬ 
fluence enough to persuade the Queen to join him in 
entering a minute, hitherto unnoticed, on the records 
of the Privy Council, that no remission should be 
granted, “ without any exception,” for a year . 2 Such 
a surcease in the exercise of one of the highest prero¬ 
gatives of the Crown was obviously the expedient of a 

1 August 1566, Bedford (Robertson, App. p. 255). 

2 Original minute by King and Queen in Record of Privy 
Council, 21st July 1566. 


78 


MARY STUART. 


schoolboy, not of a statesman. It shows how sincerely 
the Queen must have been attached to him, that she 
permitted herself to join in such an act for his gratifi¬ 
cation. For it must be remembered that she was four 
years older than Darnley, and was a woman of the 
sharpest wit and large political experience.—The exi¬ 
gencies of State were soon found too powerful for such 
a feeble contrivance. 

The birth of James, who united in his person the 
rights of both Mary and Darnley, made it possible fo£ 
Murray and Cecil to renew their schemes. They had 
found by experience that Mary’s creed unfitted her for 
their purpose. Darnley was excluded by his treachery. 
The Hamiltons were not of the English succession. To 
have put up Murray himself for the crown would 
have broken off from them all those of his own party 
who regarded the rights of legitimacy, and a very 
powerful section in both countries who longed to see 
the crowns united. But James was the lawful heir 
of both crowns, and for many years must be under 
tutelage. To win their game now needed only the 
removal of Darnley and Mary;—and within one 
twelvemonth from that child’s birth we shall see 
Darnley swept from the scene, Mary uncrowned and 
a prisoner in Lochleven, that infant set up in her 
place, Murray proclaimed Begent, Elizabeth’s crown 
secured, Cecil’s power perpetuated. Such a remarkable 
sequence of events could scarce have been fortuitous. 

Queen Elizabeth consented, at Mary’s request, to 
be godmother at the young Prince’s baptism, and to 


MARY STUART 


79 


send an ambassador of tbe highest rank to represent 
her on the occasion. Now that there was an heir, 
Elizabeth professed to be better affected to a settle¬ 
ment of the succession, and there was ostensibly every 
reason to hope that an end might at last be put to the 
unfortunate differences which had so long divided the 
Queens. But there was only one man in Scotland 
whose experience and skill fitted him to treat of such 
momentous affairs with the astute diplomatists of Eli¬ 
zabeth. That man was Maitland of Lethington, who 
still held the office of secretary, though in disgrace 
from his suspected concern in Riccio’s death. Mary 
was deeply conscious of the vast importance to her 
child of a friendly settlement, by which his ultimate 
right to the throne of England might be secured; 
and she was finally compelled to receive Lethington 
back. The records show that he resumed his seat at 
the Privy Council on 17th September 1566. Darn- 
ley was much opposed to this measure, and Both- 
well, again in full concert with the King, and resisted 
by Mary, took the same side so strongly that it was 
said he threatened to slay Lethington in the palace. 1 
Darnley’s discontent was greatly aggravated by a hint 
which he received, that Elizabeth’s ambassador was 
not to recognise him as King. This marked her vin¬ 
dictiveness for his betrayal of the conspirators. It 
unhappily led him to renew that demand for the 
crown matrimonial which had been made the occa¬ 
sion of so much misfortune. He had mortally offended 
1 Chalmers, ii. 469, note. 


8 o 


MARY STUART. 


the Catholic party by the death of Riceio and the 
dispersion of their Parliament. They tried to bear 
with him for sake of the Queen. But obviously no 
persuasion on earth could have induced them to trust 
him with kingly power. Murray, and the other allies 
whom Darnley had betrayed were not likely to sit still 
while he reaped the reward which they had promised 
and he had forfeited. The whole power of the Crown 
could not have carried such a measure through Parlia¬ 
ment. 

He and the Queen had issued proclamations to hold 
courts of justice in person throughout the realm, and 
especially on the Borders , 1 and the time came when 
these courts were to be held. Darnley now refused to 
accompany her.—Mary trembled when the matrimonial 
crown was again brought under discussion. “She could 
not forget the terrible events of which the same de¬ 
mand and similar conduct of the King had been the 
precursors. And whenever she heard of him being in 
communication with any of the nobles she dreaded an 
explosion. Few of them were disposed to have much 
connection with him: the loyal despised him for his 

1 The proclamation by the King and Queen to pass to Jed¬ 
burgh is dated at Alloway, 28th July 1566. On 31st July 1566 
there is an entry in the Privy Council minutes—“ The King and 
Queen being of mind, God willing, to be present at the justice ayre 
at Jedburgh the 16th August.” On 8th August the King and 
Queen continue the justice ayre at Jedburgh to 19th October, 
owing to the “ present season of the year and the time of harvest 
approaching.” By proclamation of 24th September the day was 
changed to 8th October. 


MARY STUART. 


81 


treatment of his wife, the disloyal had his treachery to 
avenge.—The Border courts were intended to be a great 
state progress to crush the disorders of these districts. 
Every man who was fit to bear arms in the adjoining 
counties had been summoned to meet the King and 
Queen at Jedburgh and Mary deeply felt the affront 
which Darnley put upon her, by forcing her to appear 
as a deserted wife on such an occasion. But this was 
not all: Lethington’s restoration had roused a spirit of 
obstinacy in Darnley’s character which had not hitherto 
exhibited itself. He refused to come under the same roof 
with Murray, Lethington, and Athol. He was indeed 
a puppet in the hands of his father, the Earl of Lennox, 
wiio was more cunning, but seems to have been no 
wiser than himself . 1 Darnley finally announced his 
intention to quit the kingdom. Mary pleaded with 
him for a whole night without success. She assembled 
her Council and sent for the French ambassador the 
next morning, and entreated Darnley in their presence 
to declare whether she had offended him. The French 
ambassador describes what passed in a letter which is 
still in existence . 2 He says—“She took him by the 
hand, and besought him for God’s sake to declare if 
she'had given him any occasion for this resolution, 
and entreated he might deal plainly and not spare her.” 
The lords also, and the ambassador, made similar ap¬ 
peals to him, and at last the King deciared that he had 

1 See Randolph’s letter, 4th July 1565 (Keith, Spott., ii. 314). 

2 15th October 1566 (Keith, Spottiswoode edition, vol. ii. 
448 ; Chalmers, ii. 194). 

G 


82 


MARY STUART. 


no ground at all; but be went away, saying to tbe 
Queen, “ Adieu, madame; you shall not see my face 
for a long time/' The ambassador adds : “ There is not 
one person in all this kingdom, from the highest to the 
lowest, that regards him any further than is agreeable 
to the Queen; and I never saw her Majesty so much 
beloved, esteemed, and honoured, nor so great a har¬ 
mony amongst all her subjects, as at present is, by her 
wise conduct.” 

The Privy Council also have left on record their 
account of this matter, which is the more valuable 
because the same men at a later period attempted, 
for their own objects, to cast discredit on the Queen . 1 
They testify that, “ so far as things could come to their 
knowledge, the King had no ground of complaint, but, 
on the contrary, that he had reason to look upon him¬ 
self as one of the most fortunate princes in Chris¬ 
tendom, could he but know his own happiness.” 
They added, “ that although they who did perpetrate 
the murder of her faithful servant had entered her 
chamber with his knowledge, having followed him 
close at the back, and had named him the chief of 
their enterprize, yet would she never accuse him there¬ 
of, but did always excuse him, and willed to appeal* as 
if she believed it not; and so far was she from minis¬ 
tering to him occasion of discontent that, on the con¬ 
trary, he had all the reason in the world to thank God 
for giving him so wise and virtuous a person as she 

1 Their letter to Queen-Mother of France, 8th October 1566 
Chalmers, ii. 189). 


MARY STUART. 


83 


had showed herself in all her actions.” The same 
paper records the fact that the King had refused to 
enter the palace, on account of the presence of three of 
the councillors , 1 and that the Queen condescended so 
far as to go to meet him outside of the palace, and so 
conducted him into her own apartment, where he re¬ 
mained all night. There were twelve privy councillors 
present on this occasion, but Bothwell was not there, 
having gone to Liddesdale, as lord-lieutenant of the 
district, to make preparation for the justice courts 
which were now at hand. 

1 Mr. Froude says the three were Murray, Lethington, and 
Argyle—not Athol (viii. 300). 


84 


MARY STUART. 


CHAPTER XIII. 

What did Darnley mean by bis threat to quit the 
country ? Obviously he knew the hold which he had 
of the Queens affections, and by advice of his cold- 
hearted father he trafficked on it to compel her to 
concede an impossibility. He knew that, in spite of 
all that had passed, his absence would in her eyes 
be a great calamity. If she had wished to be quit 
of him, as her enemies afterwards said, his threat to 
go would not have distressed her as it did. She would 
have been thankful to him in that case for leaving the 
country. The mean game of the father and son was 
to put a strain on her affections to force her into com¬ 
pliance. But when she was counselled to let him 
“ take his swing,” what happened ? He hired ships ; 
he made ostentatious preparations to embark; but he 
never put his foot on board. He kept up the game at 
intervals for several months, and, as we shall find 
afterwards, he gave in at last, when he found that all 
the world except his wife looked on him with contempt. 

Mary was now obliged to proceed to Jedburgh, 
unsupported by her husband, to hold the courts for 
pacifying the Border which she had concerted with 
him, and proclaimed so long before. At the last 


MARY STUART. 


85 


public ceremony in which. she asked his presence he 
had withheld it in the same way, and it was connected 
in her mind with a frightful calamity.—The circuit- 
town was crowded. She had summoned “the lords, 
barons, freeholders, landed men, gentlemen, and sub¬ 
stantial yeomen of Edinburgh, Haddington, Berwick, 
Selkirk, Peebles, Lanark, Linlithgow, Stirling, Clack¬ 
mannan, Kinross, and Fife, well boden in war,” with 
twenty days’ provisions, to meet her in aid of the 
authority of the law, and they had come . 1 But when 
the day arrived, the elaborate preparations were threat¬ 
ened with ridicule in a way which nobody could have 
dreamt of. There were no criminals upon whom to 
administer justice . 2 The lord-lieutenant, Both well, 
had been struck down and dangerously wounded in 
conflict with one of the Border ruffians whom he had 
been sent to capture, and the whole of his prisoners 
had escaped. Here was a dilemma for the mortified 
Queen; and her lieutenant, the chief magistrate of the 
district, who alone could advise what was best to be 
done, was lying disabled at his castle of Hermitage. 

1 The circuit-town was so crowded that special arrangements 
had to be made by the Privy Council to secure provisions. 

2 Mr. Tytler says (vol. vii. 58) that Mary opened her court 
at Jedburgh on 8th October, and that she was occupied uninter¬ 
ruptedly from that day till the 15th in the proceedings against 
the delinquents. But the minutes of the Privy Council on 11th 
October show that no person had brought forward any charge, 
and in consequence the Council then ordained all who were 
aggrieved to lodge informations with the Justice-Clerk. 


86 


MARY STUART. 


Mary's spirit rose with the occasion. She took horse 
and, accompanied by Murray, Lethington, and the rest 
of her Privy Council and attendants, galloped across 
the country to consult him in this emergency. She 
remained two hours at Hermitage, accomplished the 
necessary arrangements for preventing the defeat of 
justice, and rode back immediately to Jedburgh . 1 We 
know from a letter of the time that her communication 
with Bothwell at Hermitage took place entirely in 
presence of Murray and the other lords who were 
with her . 2 This visit, thus accompanied, and paid 
under these circumstances, was afterwards twisted by 
Mary’s enemies into evidence of inordinate passion 
for Bothwell, It occurred eleven days after he had 
been wounded. Murray, who with his wife attended 
her on that occasion, gave his countenance in after¬ 
times, when he had usurped her government and she 
was a prisoner in England, to the publication of an 

1 “ 7tli Oct. 1566.—Queen and nobilitie went to Jedburgh to 
hold justice ayre. Bothwell was sent by our soveraines to appre¬ 
hend certain malefactors and bring them to the justice ayre. 
Caught John Eliot of the Park, who tried to escape. Bothwell 
pursued and fell in a sheugh (ditch) hurt, and swooned, after he 
had shot a pistol at Eliot. Eliot, seeing him fall, gave h im three 
wounds—one in the body, one in the head, and one in the hand. 
Eliot died of his wound. The other thieves in custody at Her¬ 
mitage, hearing what had happened, broke out , and Bothwell could 
not get into his own house till they got free .” 

“ 15th Oct. 1566.—Queen rode from Jedburgh to Hermitage 
and spake with Earl, and returned same night” ( Diurnal of 
Occurrents). 

2 Calig. b. iv. 104 dor so ; Tytler, vii. 59, note. 


MARY STUART. 


87 


infamous libel in which it was said that the Queen, on 
hearing of Bothwelhs wound, “ dung away in haist lyke 
ane mad woman be great journeys in post, in the schairp 
tyme of winter, first to Melrose, and then to Jedburgh ” 
and though she there “ heard sure news of his life, 
dispysing all discommodities of the way and wedder, 
and all dangers of theiffs, sche betuke herself heidlang 
to hir j or nay” (to see Bothwell) “ with ane company 
as na man of ony honest degree would have adventured 
his life and his gudes amang them .” 1 

1 This is a favourable specimen of the scandalous and de¬ 
clamatory publication which Buchanan called his Detection of 
Mary. It was always suspected that he was hired by Elizabeth’s 
ministers to write it for the purpose of discrediting Mary with 
the Catholic party in England. It may now be taken as certain ; 
Buchanan’s name stands on the English pension-lists for £100 
a-vear. A curious list of pensions will be found in the Appendix 
No. XVIII. 


88 


MARY STUART. 


CHAPTER XIV. 

Mary’s exertions, and her distress at her husbands 
unreasonable conduct, threw her into a fever at Jed¬ 
burgh, and she was brought to the brink of the grave. 
For several hours she lay as if dead, and her life was 
long despaired of. 1 Lethington wrote from Jedburgh 
that she had looked for nothing but death. He adds— 
“The occasion of the Q. seikness, sa far as I under¬ 
stand, is cumed off thought and displeasour, and I 
trow by that I could wring farther off hir awne de¬ 
claration to me, the rote off it is the Kyng.” 2 

The King heard of her illness ; but still trafficking 
on her affection and hoping to wring from her a con¬ 
sent to his demands, he was slow to come to her. 
She was greatly mortified by this apparent coldness. 
He confessed to the French ambassador that he wished 
her to send for him, and the ambassador replied 
that he didn’t doubt the Queen’s goodness, but that 

1 When the Queen thought herself dying she sent for her 
ministers, recommended them to act together in peace after her 
death, and urged them to be tolerant in matters of religion. 
“ It’s a sair thing,” she said, “ to have the conscience pressed in 
sic a matter ” (Letter, Bishop of Ross to Archbishop of Glasgow ; 
Keith’s Appendix). 

2 Lethington to Archbishop of Glasgow, 24th October 1566 
(Sloane Coll. 3199, near middle, marked at top “Mem. Scotland,” 
vol. ii. C. S. D.) 


MARY STUART. 


89 


there were few women who, after his conduct, would 
seek after him. At last, when she was out of danger, 
he made his appearance at her bedside. She affected 
to return his indifference, and did not ask him to 
remain. He left next day.—Sir James Melville tells 
us that she at that time made her will. Her judgment 
counselled her to place her child under the care of 
Queen Elizabeth, to secure him the best prospect of 
succeeding to that English crown for which she herself 
had so long looked in vain. But there remains a 
remarkable evidence, recently discovered, of the true 
state of her feelings in regard to her husband, in the 
inventories of her jewels, opposite to each article in 
which she wrote the name of the person to whom she 
bequeathed it. Twenty-five of these she left to her 
husband; and there is one cherished ring opposite 
which she has written—“ It is the ring with which I 
was betrothed. I leave it to the King who gave it to 
me.” Yet it is pretended that she was then planning 
his murder. 

Murray, Lethington, Bothwell, Huntly, and Ar- 
gyle afterwards went together to the Queen at Craig- 
millar, and besought her to divorce Darnley. She 
refused. 1 This was in November; and in December 
Forster writes to Cecil—“The King and Queen is 
presently at Craigmillar.” 2 

The time soon arrived for the baptism. 3 Queen 

1 See infra , Chap. XjXVI. and Appendix No. XIX. 

2 11th December 1566, Forster to Cecil (Kobertson’s Ap¬ 
pendix). J 3 17th December 1566. 


9 o 


MARY STUART. 


Elizabeth sent a special ambassador with a large font 
of silver gilt, and charged him to do all honour to the 
Queen and Prince, but to treat Darnley as an English 
subject. This affront, which Mary was not in a posi¬ 
tion to resent without risking the prospects of her 
child, made it impossible for Darnley to be present at 
the ceremony. 1 He himself explained this to the 
French ambassador, 2 but Mary’s libellers have actually 
printed and circulated all over the world that she re¬ 
fused him a suit of clothes in which he could appear ! 
Mr. Tytler states the fact of his absence at the baptism, 
but overlooks its true cause, and imputes it to the hos¬ 
tility of Bothwell and others, for which there is no 
foundation. The child was baptized with the cere¬ 
monies of the Church of Eome; the English ambassa¬ 
dor, with Bothwell and some of the other Protestant 
lords, refusing to enter the chapel. 3 

Bothwell had repeatedly taken a lead in resisting 
Mary’s persuasions to her officers to attend the mass. 
Randolph has recorded that at the previous Candlemas 
the Queen was bent on making a great demonstration 
in her chapel, 4 and required the attendance of some of 
her lords at the mass, that several refused, “ Both¬ 
well the stoutest of them all.” And at his own mar- 

1 Wright, i. 607. 2 Labanoff, i. 378 ; Strickland, v. 68. 

3 “ My Lords Huntly, Murray, Bothwell, nor the English am¬ 

bassador came not within the chapel, because it was done against 
the points of their religion” (Diurnal of Occurrents, 17th Decem¬ 
ber 1566). 

4 7th February 1566 (Rob. App. 252). 


MARY STUART 


9 1 


riage with Huntly’s sister in spring, in the palace, 
he risked the Queen s anger by refusing the Popish 
form. Knox tells us—“ The Queen desired that the 
marriage might be made in the chapel at the mass, 
which the Earl Both well would in nowise grant.” 1 

Strong representations were made to Mary by 
Queen Elizabeth, that she should now signalise the 
young Prince’s baptism by extending her clemency to 
Morton and his associates. The English succession 
seemed to be in a fair way of being settled, and this 
gave great weight to Elizabeth’s wishes. The king of 
France was also urgent. Murray and Lethington 
pressed it strongly, and even Bothwell and Huntly 
(whom Mary could not suspect of undue affection for 
the conspirators who had sought their own lives) joined 
with the rest. The whole of her councillors were of 
the same mind, and Mary had to yield. Andrew 
Carr of Faudonside, who had put his pistol to the 
Queen’s breast, was excepted from the pardon. 

The French ambassador wrote of Darnley—“ His 
bad deportment is incurable.” 2 He had sent three 
times to ask a meeting with the ambassador, who was 
obliged at last to intimate that there were two passages 
to his apartments, and that if his Majesty should enter 
by the one, he, the ambassador, would be constrained 
to go out by the other. 

Darnley was much offended, perhaps alarmed, at 

1 Knox, vol. ii. Woodrow edition, 529. See also Drury’s 
letter in Appendix hereto, No. VIII. 

2 Chalmers, ii. 198. 23d December 1566. 


92 


MARY STUART. 


the pardon of Morton, Archibald Douglas, and their 
seventy-five associates. If he had told the whole 
truth to the Queen she might have shared his 
anxiety. He immediately left the Court, and pro¬ 
ceeded to Glasgow, where his father resided. This was 
within a day or two after the French ambassador had 
so plainly reprobated his conduct. The Earl of Mar 
is said to have warned Darnley at this time that 
Murray had a design on his life, and this has been given 
as an explanation of the suddenness of his departure. 
But the restoration of so large a body of desperate men 
whom he had betrayed after holding secret relations 
with them, was enough to suggest danger to him with¬ 
out such confirmation. He became very ill on reach¬ 
ing Glasgow. Spots broke out all over his body, and 
the Queen sent her own physician to him, who found 
that he had small-pox. 1 

1 State Paper Office—Bedford to Cecil, 9th 3 January 1567 
(Cal. xiii. 3). 


MARY STUART. 


93 


CHAPTER XV. 

James was destined to be tbe first sovereign who 
should unite the three kingdoms under one crown. 
His baptism was full of hope to Mary. She saw in 
Elizabeth's acceptance of the office of godmother a 
recognition of her son as the ultimate heir of England. 
Elizabeth's aim, on the other hand, had been to obtain 
the restoration of Morton and his confederates. She 
did not hesitate to play off Mary’s hopes as a mother 
against her indignation as a queen and her feelings as 
a wife. Elizabeth thus succeeded in satisfying Morton, 
while she mortified Darnley, - and bound herself to 
nothing. Having gained her objects, she resumed her 
old policy. The ambassador, whom she had com¬ 
missioned to negotiate as to the succession, courteously 
withdrew. He left the kindest assurances of goodwill, 
and of a friendly solution—in the future. 

But the English Parliament had become urgent to 
have the succession settled. A dangerous illness 
which Elizabeth had suffered some time before had 
drawn attention to the perils of a doubtful succession. 
The opposing factions joined in the wish that Mary's 
title should be recognised, 1 and the birth of James 
1 Labanoff, i. 357. 


94 


MARY STUART. 


strengthened the popular leaning in her favour. 1 
Elizabeth had committed herself so far as to say that 
she would proceed in the question before Parliament 
rose. 2 Cecil was in want of a pretext to release her 
from this pledge, which she had no mind to fulfil. She 
had been so much irritated by the Parliamentary pres¬ 
sure which was put upon her, that she had vowed she 
would take a husband “ who would not be to the taste 
of some of them/' 3 

Mary’s health was broken, though she had borne up 
nobly under the petulant conduct of her husband. Le 
Croc, the French ambassador, reported to his Court on 
23d December 1566 4 :—“I do believe the principal 
part of her disease to consist in a deep grief and 
sorrow; nor does it seem possible to make her forget 
the same. Still she repeats these words—‘ I could 
wish to be dead.’ * * * The Q ueen behaved 

admirably well all the time of the baptism, and 
showed so much earnestness to entertain all the goodly 
company in the best manner, that this made her forget 
in a good measure all her former ailments. But I am 

1 “ All England then bore her Majesty great reverence ” 
(Melville’s Memoirs). 

De Silva, in a letter to Philip of Spain, 26th Oct. 1566, 
says—“ The Scotch Queen has much credit with the good all over 
the realm” (England). The English peers were unanimously for 
Mary (Froude, viii. 319). 

51 Mary’s letter to Elizabeth, 3d January 1566-7 (Labanoff, 

i. 389). 

3 Froude, viii. 316. 

4 Le Croc, 23d December 1566, published by Chalmers, 

ii. 198 ; Tytler, vii. 67 ; Keith, pref. 7. 


MARY STUART. 


95 


of the mind, however, that she will give us some 
trouble yet; nor can I be brought to think otherwise 
so long as she continues so pensive and melancholy. 
She sent for me yesterday, and I found her laid on the 
bed weeping sore. * * * I am much grieved 

for the many troubles and vexations she meets with.” 

Darnley’s illness was a new addition to her trials. 
The most agitating rumours were also put into cir¬ 
culation : one that he had been poisoned; another 
that he and Lennox had embarked in a new plot to 
depose her, crown the prince, and ’ establish Darnley 
as his father in the government. The former rumour 
is explained by the pustules of small-pox; the latter 
was communicated to the Queen herself by William 
Walker, a servant of the Archbishop of Glasgow. 1 

Murray, Lethington, and others, working on Mary's 
fears, now urged her, though she had rejected their plan 
of divorce, to proceed against Darnley for treason. 2 But 
she would not listen to their proposal, though much 
disquieted. An old writer says that they presented 
to her for signature a warrant for Darnley's imprison¬ 
ment ; and means were taken, on the other hand, to 
convey to him that she was about to send him to 
prison. One of the letters which was afterwards 
produced against Mary represents Darnley as telling 

1 Mary’s letter to Archbishop of Glasgow, 20th January 
1566-7 (Labanoff, i. 396). 

2 “ They offered to get him convict of treason because lie 

consented to her Grace’s retention in ward, . . . quhilk 

altogeddir her Grace refusit, as is manifestlie known ” ( Instructions 
by Thirty of the Scottish Lords and Prelates , etc., Goodall, ii. 359). 


9 6 


MARY STUART. 


her in Glasgow that he had heard of this warrant, and 
of her refusal to subscribe it. 1 No effort was spared 
to widen the breach between them. 

Thus harassed, she took the frank and simple- 
hearted course of going to her erring husband. Her 
decision must have been sudden, and was probably 
the result of impulse. She had written to the Arch¬ 
bishop of Glasgow, her ambassador in France, on 
20th January 1566-7. She told him what had been 
declared by Walker, his servant,^ in regard to the 
King ; and her letter contains no hint of any expecta¬ 
tion to see her husband soon. Yet in a few days 

1 Goodall, ii. 11. Darnley (according to Crawford’s evidence, 
who got liis information from Darnley himself) said to the Queen 
at Glasgow, when they were conversing about their differences 
and the rumours which had been current—“ The laird of Minto 
told me 1 that a letter was presented to you at Craigmillar, made, 
as he said, by your device, and subscribed by certain others, who 
desired you to subscribe the same, which you refused to do; and I 
could never believe that you, who are my own proper flesh, 
would do me any hurt; and if any other would do it, they 
should buy it dear, unless they took me sleeping ’ ” (Crawford’s 
deposition, quoted by Strickland, v. 123). 

2 “ Lately a servand of yours, named William Walcar, came 
to our presens, being for the time at Sterveling, and in his 
communication, amangis utheris thingis, declarit to us how it 
was not only oppinly bruted, but also he had hard be report of 
personis quhome he esteemit luffaris of us, that the King, be 
the assistance of sum of our nobilitie, suld tak the Prince our 
sone and crown him, and being crownit, as his father suld tak 
upon him the government, with sum utheris attemptates and 
purpozes to this fyne” (Mary’s letter to Archbishop of Glasgow, 
20th January 1566-7 ; Laban, i. 396). Walker named William 
Heigate, town-clerk of Glasgow, as his authority. 


MARY STUART. 


97 


afterwards, she was at his bedside in Glasgow. 
Drury wrote to Cecil from Berwick on 23d January— 
“ The Lord Darly lyeth sick at Glasgo of the small- 
pocks, unto whom the Queen came yesterday. That 
disease beginneth to spread there .” 1 

The physician whom she sent to Darnley would 
naturally explain to his patient what is repeatedly 
noticed in the correspondence of the time, that his 
wife's spirits and health had given way. He very 
probably gave his opinion of the cause, which un¬ 
doubtedly was vexation on her husband’s account; and 
if there was a spark of right feeling in Darnley he 
could not fail to be touched by it. He had written 
some months before to the Pope proposing an ener¬ 
getic effort to restore the Roman Catholic Church in 
Scotland, and Father Edmonds, the Principal of the 
Jesuits, had come from Italy . 2 If further mediation 
was needed, it was thus at hand. At all events, through 
some channel, Darnley seems to have conveyed to his 

1 This is quoted from Tytler, vii. 442. Chalmers quotes the 
letter differently. He makes it—“Unto whom, I hear, the 
Queen intendeth to go and bring him away as soon as he can 
bear the cold air” (Chalmers, ii. 178; Jebb, ii. 59). The 
author has hitherto been unable to trace any letter in the 
State Paper Office containing either of the passages. There 
is a letter in the State Paper Office (xiii. 3) by Bedford to 
Cecil, 9th January 1566-7—“ The King is now at Glasgo wt. his 
father, and there lyeth full of the small pokes, to whom the 
Queen hath sent her phisician.” Murray’s diary (Goodall, 
ii. 247) represents the Queen as leaving Edinburgh on 21st, and 
on the way meeting Crauford (see infra) on the 23 d. 

2 Strickland, v. 116. 

H 


9 8 


MARI STUART. 


wife, soon after the 20th of January, an expression of 
repentance for the conduct by which he had so much 
distressed her. The Bishop of Ross, who was much in 
Mary’s confidence, writes that, “ hearing her husband 
was repentant, and desired her presence, she, without 
delay, hasted with such speed as she conveniently 
might to visit him at Glasgow.” It is certain that 
she found him most humble and penitent, willing to 
be advised by her in all things; which is a state of 
mind so unlike anything we have hitherto seen of him, 
as to be nearly conclusive that she went in com¬ 
pliance with an entreaty from him. If she had gone 
unasked, he would no doubt have been very glad to 
see her, but he was not the man to be humble in that 
case. When she had been urged to divorce him and 
refused, she had said, “ Perad venture he may change 
opinion, and acknowledge himself.” He had now 
done so. 

Though her going was sudden, it appears that 
she was not unexpected. Darnley’s father sent to 
meet her on the way. Mr. Froude and Mr. Tytler 
have both fallen into the mistake of representing 
the messenger as sent by Darnley, not by his 
father. It is a very serious mistake, for they trans¬ 
fer by it to Darnley some bitter and well-deserved 
observations which Mary made to the messenger 
in regard to Lennox, on account of his having mis¬ 
led Darnley, and helped to make so much mischief 
between them. Through this mistake, these two 
eminent. historians have been led to the conclusion 


MARY STUART. 


99 


that when she went to Glasgow, as if to be reconciled 
to her husband, her heart was really full of rancour. 
They have put this in the front of their case against 
her; and it appears to have swayed them both, and 
indeed to have started them off in a false groove, 
which has led them wrong to the end. 1 The 
nature of the message should have guarded them 
against such a grievous error. The Earl of Lennox 

1 Mr. Froude’s account of this meeting is very graphic, but in 
so far as regards its application to Darnley, highly imaginative. 
He says—“ The news that she was on her way to Glasgow anti¬ 
cipated her appearance there. Darnley was still confined to his 
room; but, hearing of her approach, he sent a gentleman who 
was in attendance on him, named Crawford, a noble, fearless 
kind of person, to apologise for his inability to meet her. It 
seems that, after hearing of the bond at Craigmillar, he had 
written some letter to her, the inconvenient truths of which had 
been irritating; and she had used certain bitter expressions 
about him which had been carried to his ears. His heart half 
sunk in him when he was told that she was coming ! and Crawford, 
when he gave his message, did not hide from her that his master 
was afraid of her. 

“ ‘ There is no remedy against fear,’ the Queen said shortly. 

“ ‘ Madam,’ Crawford answered, ‘ I know so far of my 
master, that he desires nothing more than that the secrets of 
every creature’s heart were writ in their faces.’ 

“ Crawford’s suspicions were too evident to be concealed. 
The Queen did not like them. She asked sharply if he had 
more to say 1 and when he said he had discharged his commission, 
she bade him hold his peace” (Froude, viii. 353). 

We have two original descriptions of this meeting. A letter 
imputed to Mary herself gives the following account of it:— 

“ Estant encor a quatre mille pas de la ville, vint a moy un 
gentilhomme envoye par le Conte de Lenos, qui me salva en son 
nom ; et 1’excusa de ce qu’il ne m’estoit venu au devant, disant, 


100 


MARY STUART. 


was her lieutenant, whose duty it was to meet and 
escort her, and his message was, that he could not 
venture to come, which was no great wonder, as she 

qu’il ne l’avoit ose entreprendre, & cause que j’avoye tense 
Cunningham avec paroles aigres. II me demanda aussi que 
je m’enquisse de soup^n que j’avoye contre iceluy Conte. Ceste 
derniere partie de son dire avoit est4 adjoustee par luy, sans que 
le Conte luy eust command^. 

“ Je respondy, qu’il riy avoit point de remede contre la crainte ; 
et que s’il estoit hors de faute, il ne seroit pas tant timide ; et 
que je n’avoye point respondu asprement sinon aux doutes qui 
estoient en ses lettres. En somme, j’imposay silence au personnage ” 
(Goodall, ii. 1). 

In the Scotch abstract of this letter usually published with 
it (Goodall, ii. 16), this passage is described as “ The Message of 
the Father in the Gait (way).” “ Nuncius patris in it mere.” 

Crawford’s account of the meeting was given in to Elizabeth’s 
Commissioners as evidence against Mary, and remains in the 
State Paper Office (Scotland, vol. xiii. No. 14). He is described in 
the minutes of the Commissioners (Goodall, ii. 245) as “one Thomas 
Crawford, a gentleman of the Earl of Lennox—the same party of 
whom mention is made in a long lettre written in French, where it 
is said, about the beginning of the same lettre, that a gentleman of 
the Earl of Lenox met the party that wrote the lettre about 
four miles from the place where the lettre was written.” Craw¬ 
ford’s statement says :— 

“ The words betwixt the Q. and me Thomas Craufurd bye 
the waye as she came to Glasgo to fetch the King, when my L. 
my master sent me to shew her the cause why he came not to 
meet her himself. First I maid mye L. mye master’s humble 
commendationns unto her Ma^, with the excuse that he came 

not to meet her, requesting her Grace not to think it was_ 

[illegible] —or yet for not knowing his duty towards her Highness, 
but only for want of heltli at the present, and also that he would 
not presume to come in her presence until he knew farther her 
mind because of the sharp words that she had spoken of him to 


MARY STUART. 


IOI 


had forbidden him her presence; 1 but Darnley, who 
could not stir from his bed, and whom the Queen was 
going to for that very reason, had no need to send an 
apology for not coming to meet her. 

She remained at Glasgow in close attendance on 
him till about the 28th of January, and then returned 
to Edinburgh, bringing him by easy stages in a litter 
which had been prepared for the purpose. She could 
not take him to Holyrood, lest the infection should be 

Robert Cunningham, his servant, in Stirling, whereby he thought 
he was in Her Ma tie ’s displeasure,—notwithstanding he hath sent 
his servants and friends to wait upon Her Matie. 

“ She answered that there was no receipt against fear. I 
answered that my L. had no fear for the things he knew in 
himself, but onlie of the rude and unkind words she had spoken 
to his servant. She answered and said that he would not be 
afraid in case he were not culpable. I answered that I knew so 
farr of his Lordship that he desired nothing more than that the 
secrets of every creture’s harte were written in their face. 

“ She asked me if I had any farther commission ! 

“ I answered Ho. 

“ Then she commanded me to hold my peace.” 

At Bothwell’s trial “ there appeared Robert Cuningham, who 
called himself servant to the said Mathew Earl of Lenox,” and 
made protestation in his master’s name, “the said Robert 
Cuningham being proxy from the Earl of Lennox ” (State Trials, 
vol. i. 80). And Crawford himself is stated by Drury to have 
also appeared for Lennox at the trial (Drury to Cecil, 15 th 
April, 1567 ; Chalmers, ii. 246). 

Murray’s Diary bears “ January 23 : The Quene came to 
Glasgow, and on the rode met her Thomas Crawford, from the 
Erie of Lennox,” &c. 

1 “ The Earl of Lennox came not in the Queen’s sight since the 
death of Davy” (Forster to Cecil, 8th Sept. 1566 ; Robertson, 
Appendix). 


102 


MARY STUART. 


communicated to her child. She proposed to take 
him to Craigmillar, but he was unwilling to go there, 
and a lodging at the Kirk of Field was finally selected 
for him. Mr. Froude represents Darnley as anxious 
to go to Craigmillar and prevented by the Queen ; but 
Darnley s servant, Thomas Nelson, who accompanied 
them from Glasgow, says distinctly, “ it was devised 
in Glasgow that the King should have lain first at 
Craigmillar; but because he hadna will thereof the 
purpose was altered, and conclusion taken that he 
should lye beside the Kirk of Field.” 1 Upon this 
mistake also Mr. Froude founds inferences against the 
Queen. 

The grounds of the Kirk of Field are now occupied 
by the University and by the buildings which lie 
between it and the old High School at Edinburgh. 
The ground to the south, now covered by the growth 
of the city, was then unbuilt upon. It was considered 
the most salubrious site in the neighbourhood of Edin¬ 
burgh ; and its character in that respect came down to 
much later times, for about sixty years ago it was 
chosen as the best site for the Royal Infirmary. Here 

1 Nelson’s deposition (Goodall, ii. 244).—Another of Mr. 
Froude’s mistakes is amusing. He represents Darnley as so 
jealous of his wife that he could not bear her familiarity with 
some of her Lords “ which kept most company with her.” On 
referring to the original document which Mr. Froude quotes, the 
word which he has printed “ Lords ” is unmistakeably “ Ladies !” 
“ the Ladies of Arguile, Murrey, and Marre, who kept most com¬ 
pany with her.” The date is August 1566. The document is in 
the State Paper Office; Scotland ; Elizabeth, vol. xii. 99, A 1. 


MARY STUART. 103 

Mary attended on her husband every day, generally 
returning to Holyrood at night to be with her child, 
but occasionally remaining for the night at the Kirk 
of Field. 

Their reconciliation boded ill for those who had 
set discord between them. It brought things back 
to the position of which Elizabeth’s ambassador had 
written a year and a half before, “they (the con¬ 
federates) see nothing but God must send him a short 
end or them a miserable life.” The chief differences 
were that, in the interval, they had practised them¬ 
selves in high-handed murder, and Darnley had 
betrayed them to the brink of ruin. Apart from the 
Queen, Darnley was powerless. But his restoration to 
her confidence must have roused the fears as well as 
the hatred of his enemies, and not least of those whose 
grants of the Crown lands were still revocable. For 
Mary had now entered on the last of the four years 
allowed to her by law for making revocation; and 
probably nothing but the divisions between her and 
her husband had delayed this customary measure so 
long. 


io4 


MARY STUART. 


CHAPTEE XVI. 

At tliis time the Lord Eobert Stuart, the abbot of 
Holyrood-house, who was Murray’s half-brother, com¬ 
municated to Darnley that there was a plot against his 
life. Darnley at once reported it to the Queen. She 
did what any sensible and loyal woman would do in 
the same circumstances; she sent for the Lord Eobert, 
to have it inquired into at once,-—with the help of 
Murray and her Council. The Lord Eobert denied 
what he had said. Darnley gave him the lie; weapons 
were drawn ; and the Queen had to call on Murray to 
interpose between them. The Lord Eobert was highly 
incensed, and she had much difficulty in preventing fur¬ 
ther mischief. She had to go to his chambers at Holy- 
rood to negotiate a reconciliation, after she left Darnley 
on that night. There is a beautiful letter of hers which 
she seems to have sent to Darnley from Holy- 
rood on the night of this occurrence. 1 One may per¬ 
ceive in it, with a touch of jealousy, for which he had 
given too much occasion, an outpouring of wifely affec¬ 
tion which was very suitable to Darnley s state at the 

1 Murray’s Diary says it was sent on 7th February, and that 
on the 8th, she again “ confronted the King and my Lord of Haly- 
ruidhouse, conforme to her letter wryttin the nycht befoir” 
(Goodall, ii. ; February 7 and 8). 


MARY STUART. 


*°5 

time, and which gives a clear insight into the true state 
of her heart. She says : 

“ I would not have sat so late, above, had it not been 
to find out what the bearer will tell you, which I find 
the best means to settle our affair. I have promised a 
meeting to-morrow. See to it, if you think well of it. 

“ I have now broken our arrangement, for you for¬ 
bade me to write or send to you. Nevertheless I have 
not done it to offend you ; and if you knew how much 
I am alarmed at this time you would not entertain so 
many vexatious suspicions, which, however, I bear, and 
take in good part, as arising from that which I desire 
most of all things under heaven, and seek with the ut¬ 
most diligence to win, the knowledge of your affection 
—of which I would assure myself by devotion to my 
many duties toward you. For my part I shall never 
despair; and I pray that, as you promised, you will 
make me sensible of your attachment. Otherwise I shall 
conceive that my unhappy destiny, and the better stars 
of those who yet have not a third part of my fidelity 
and of my willing obedience to you, have in my de¬ 
spite given them the first place in your favour, as if I 
were another supplanted love of Jason—not that I 
would liken you to him for unhappiness, or myself to 
her for cruelty; and yet you constrain me to be in 
some measure like her in all those things which touch 
you, or which can keep and preserve you to her to whom 
alone you rightfully belong, for I may well claim you 
as my own who alone have won you loyally, and have 
loved you so singly as I do, and shall do while I live; 


io6 


MARY STUART. 


strengthening myself by my love against all the pains 
and dangers which can come of it. And for all the 
evils of which you have been the cause to me, return 
me this proof of your affection, that you keep in your 
remembrance the place which is hard by . 1 

“ I don t ask you to keep your promise to me to¬ 
morrow, but that "we meet, and that you dont yield to 
suspicion without proof. I ask* no other thing of God 
but that you may know what is in my heart, which is 
yours,—and that He may preserve you from all evil, at 
least so long as I have life, which indeed I do not value 
except so far as I and it are acceptable to you. 

“ I now go to bed and commit you to God. Let 
me know early in the morning how you are, for I shall 
be in anxiety until I hear of you. Like a bird escaped 
from the cage, or the dove without its mate, I shall re¬ 
main alone to lament your absence, however short it 
may be. This unsought letter will do what I cannot 
myself, if by chance, as I fear, you are not yet asleep. 
I did not venture to write it before Joseph, Sebastian, 
and Joachim—they were just leaving when I began.” 

This beautiful letter was written in French. It is 
given here with all the disadvantages of a translation. 
Beautiful as it is, with the ring of true feeling, and 
suitable only between a wife and husband, it was after¬ 
wards made one of the chief instruments of her ruin. 

1 Probably the place where their child was. But it may be 
an allusion to the place of Biccio’s death, to keep Darnley in re¬ 
membrance of the terrible consequences of such unjust suspicions 
as are alluded to in her letter. 


MARY STUART 


107 


It is not dated, signed, or addressed, but her accusers 
have always represented it as written by her 1 within 
three days of Darnley’s death. 

Two days later 2 she remained at his bedside till 
midnight. She put a ring on his finger and kissed 
him, when she left him. She had promised to grace 
the marriage of one of her household, and went to Holy- 
rood to keep her promise . 3 

There was speeding towards her through the night 
a despatch from her ambassador at Paris, which did 
not reach her till morning :— 

“ The ambassador of Spaigne requests me to adver¬ 
tise you to tak heid to yourself. I have had sum 
murmuring in likeways be others, that there be sum 
surprise to be transacted in your contrair, but he would 
never let me know of nae particular, only assured me 
he had written to his M y to know gif be that way he 
can try any farder, and that he was adverteesit 
* 

1 Murray’s Diary; Goodall 2, 248—7th February. 

2 Sunday, 9th February 1566-7. 

3 “ The King being lodged at one end of the city of Edin¬ 
burgh and the Queen at the other, the said lady came to see 
him on a Sunday evening, which was the 9th of this month, 
about seven o’clock, with all the principal lords of her Court, and 
after having remained with him two or three hours, she with¬ 
drew to attend the bridal of one of her gentlemen, according to 
her promise ; and if she had not made that promise, it is believed 
that she would have remained till twelve or one o’clock with 
him, seeing the good understanding and union in which the said 
lady Queen and the King her husband had been living for the 
last three weeks ” (Report by Clernault, the French envoy; 
Strickland, vol. v. 163). 


io8 


MARY STUART. 


and counsellit to cause me liaist towards you here¬ 
with .” 1 

This warning was written at Paris a fortnight be¬ 
fore, while Mary was with her husband in Glasgow, 
and necessarily proceeded on information which had 
previously travelled from Scotland to Paris. But it 
came a few hours too late. The catastrophe was over 
before it was delivered to the Queen. 

1 Letter, Archbishop of Glasgow, from Paris, to the Queen, 
dated 27th January 1567, which arrived on the morning after 
Darnley’s murder (MS. Sloane, 3199, British Museum). 


MARY STUART. 


109 


CHAPTEE XVII. 

On Monday 10th February 1566-7, about three o’clock 
in the morning, a terrific explosion startled the city of 
Edinburgh. It was some time before it was discovered 
what had happened. By and by the cry came to the 
palace that the king’s house at Kirk of Field had been 
destroyed. The people rushed to the spot; the house 
was lying in ruins; even the foundation-stones had 
been torn up. 1 A drawing of it made at the time re¬ 
presents the walls and roof as lying in a broken heap 
together, and not scattered to any distance. One man, 
a servant of the king, was dug alive out of the ruins. 
He had been fast asleep when the explosion took place, 
and could tell nothing. The dead bodies of two others 
were found buried among the rubbish. These three 
had slept in a small chamber near the king’s, under 
a separate roof. For some hours no trace of the king 

1 Clernault’s report describes the explosion as resembling 
“ une vollee de vingt cinq ou trente canons ”—“ logis le diet Sr. Roy 
lequel entrouva, toutallement raze, pnis cherchant ou il pourrait 
etre le trouvaient a soixante ou quatre vingt pas de ledict maison 
mort et estandu en ung jardin aussi ung vallet de chambre et ung 
jeune paige. 

“ La chose estant rapport^e ainsi a ceste pauvre princesse chun 
peult penser en quelle peine et agonie ou elle s’est trouvee, mesmes 
que telle malauventure est advenue au temps que saMa tie etle roy 
estoient au meilleur mesnaige que l’on pourroit desiree ce sorte 


no 


MARY STUART. 


could be obtained, but as tlie grey light of morning 
began to dawn, his dead body was discovered in a 
garden eighty yards from the house. The attendant 
who slept in the room with him was lying dead at 
a short distance further away. Each had on a night¬ 
shirt. There was not a fracture, contusion, or livid 
mark, nor any trace of fire on their bodies, and the 
king's clothes were laying folded beside him. A fur 
pelisse, open as if dropped, was lying near him. The 
distance and relative positions of the bodies of the 
king and his attendant were observed to be nearly the 
same as when they lay in their chamber. 1 

An old woman saw eight men leaving the Kirk of 
Field between two and three o'clock in the morning, 
“ after the crack rose." She snatched at the cloak of 
one of them, calling them traitors, as they ran past. 
The cloak was of silk, and there was armour under it. 
The same gang were seen running away by others. It 
is also said in a contemporaneous paper, recently found 
in Italy, that cries were heard of “ Mercy, my cousins /" 
Beyond this all was mystery. 

que le diet Sr. de Clernault la laiss^e affligee autant que le peult 
estre une des plus mal fortunes roynes de ce monde. Ou e’est 
bien apper^u que tel malheureuse entreprize procedoit d’une mine 
soutz terre—toutefois elle na point encores este trouvee, encores 
monis scait on qui en est lantheux.” 

Clernault was in Edinburgh at the time it occurred. This 
report (unpublished) is in the State Paper Office (Scotland, Eliza¬ 
beth, vol. xiii. p. 13). 

1 Drury to Cecil, 28th February 1567 (Tytler, vii. 447). 


MARY STUART. 


hi 


The Queen issued a proclamation, declaring that 
rather than the horrible deed should be unpunished, she 
“ would lose life and all ; n and offering a reward, a 
landed living worth £2000 at least, and a free pardon, 
for information ; but none came. 

There was an early attempt to give a direction to 
the public suspicions. Night after night cries were 
heard in the dark, and placards were stuck up on the 
walls, charging the Queen and Bothwell, and even 
Murray, and many more; but there were two men 
who were not named, who kept themselves clear of 
suspicion, who had the most deadly cause of quarrel 
with Darnley, who stood by Bothwell for a time, yet 
by and by stepped forward as avengers of Darnley’s 
death, chased Bothwell out of the country, imprisoned 
the Queen, charged her at last with the murder, and 
rose to the highest positions in the State. Both, but a 
few weeks before Darnley s death, had been banished 
men, subject to forfeiture for their treason; they were 
the chiefs of that body of the conspirators whose resto¬ 
ration Darnley had so anxiously resisted. These two 
men were James Earl of Morton and Archibald Douglas, 
his and Darnley s cousin. The one after Murray’s 
death, and the lapse of a few years more, succeeded 


1 This proclamation is dated 11th February (Brit. Mus. 
Sloane Coll. 3199). Its phraseology was echoed by the Arch¬ 
bishop of Glasgow in a subsequent letter to the Queen, which has 
been represented by some, who have not observed that the phrase 
originated with herself, as a bold reproach upon her by her own 
ambassador. 


I 12 


MARY STUART. 


to the place of Regent; the other, originally a parson, 
was pushed up by his cousin to the Bench, and became 
ultimately ambassador at Elizabeth’s Court. 

Fourteen years passed after the murder (with many 
changes, of which hereafter), and Darnley s son, King 
James, approached to manhood. One of his first acts 
when he escaped from tutelage was to commit the 
Earl of Morton to the castle, of Edinburgh, charged 
with the murder of Darnley. 1 Archibald Douglas 
instantly took guilt to himself, and fled to England. 
Queen Elizabeth made the most frantic efforts to 
prevent Mortons trial. She endeavoured to stir up 
insurrection in Scotland; she threatened war; she 
moved an army to the frontier; she sent back our 
old friend Randolph, the ambassador of Riccio’s time. 
Her right-hand man, Leicester, wrote to Randolph 
with no very obscure suggestion that the young 
King might follow the fate of his father. 2 And close 
on the heels of that came official notice that Eliza- 

1 1st January 1581 (State Papers, xxix. 1). 

2 The Earl of Leicester’s letter (unpublished) to Thomas 
Randolph, in reference to the prosecution of Morton by King 
James, is subjoined :— 

“ 1 5th February 1581.—I have known the day when Mr. 

Tho-Ra-had been able in Scotland to have done much. 

Well that he is where he was. And let that young K. (King) 
take heed if he prove unthankful to his faithful servants so soon, 
he will not long tarry in that soil. Let the speed of his prede¬ 
cessors be his warning.—Your old assured, 

“ R. Leycester.” 

—(From the original letter in the State Paper Office—Scotland, 
xxix. 971.) 


MARY STUART. 


1 *3 

beth would assist and maintain the Scots in protection 
of Morton. 

But James owed a debt to the memory of bis mur- 

This letter was written soon after Morton had been imprisoned 
on the charge of accession to Darnley’s murder. The writer was 
Elizabeth’s secret confidant ; the receiver her ambassador in Scot¬ 
land—the same ambassador who, sixteen years before, concerted 
Kiccio’s murder, and sent to Leicester, for Elizabeth’s private 
eye, the remarkable letter on that subject referred to at pp. 
49, 50. 

The correspondence in the State Paper Office (Scotland, vol. 
xxviii.) shows that Elizabeth had been very uneasy about Morton 
for a considerable 'time before he was actually imprisoned. 
Various efforts were made by her ambassador to induce him to 
“ put a platt in execution,” “ to remedy the ticklish state of 
affairs” (Bowes’s Letters , 3d and 17th May 1580). At last it was 
announced that “ Morton was ready to execute a platt for the 
common benefit” (23d May 1580). Then there arose some 
hesitation, and Walsingham asks: “ What pension, think you, 
will content Morton 1” (22d June 1580). Elizabeth herself, with 
her own hand, writes Morton on the same day that she has 
heard he is in danger, and requests to know his mind frankly, 
promising her support to him (No. 38). But Morton either 
thought his hands were red enough already, or wished to enhance 
his services. He did not reply to her till 16th July, and then, 
showing he quite appreciated what she aimed at, he cynically 
thanks her for her great care of the King ! but declines to “ make 
out a platt.” By and by her ambassador writes that Morton is 
dissatisfied that Elizabeth gave him only promises (10th August, 
vol. xxviii. No. 59). Then there is further coquetting with him. 
“The Queen is discouraged by Morton’s suspicious letter.” 
“ Morton is resolved not to answer the Queen in writing how 
far he will employ himself if assured of her Majesty’s assistance ” 
(No. 19). Bowes writes (22d August, No. 70) that there was 
little chance of recovering him “ without express deed timely 
given to his own contentment.” This is followed by Walsing- 

I 


MARY STUART. 


114 

dered father, to the name of his captive mother, who 
was then pining in her English prison, and in spite of 
Elizabeths threats and violence Morton was brought to 

ham’s order to Bowes—“if temperate means fail, confer with 
Morton and other enemies of Lenox (King James’s adviser) to 
lay violent hands on him and his associates.” This order was too 
plain, and it was recalled; and Elizabeth then resolved to try 
the young King, by hints of an intention to exclude him from 
the English throne. This fails, and Bowes reports in cipher 
that “ 45 (Morton) must be employed at once—words are of no 
value” (No. 88). The next letter shows that they had become 
alarmed, suspecting that some of Bowes’s letters had been inter¬ 
cepted, and that her Majesty’s resolution was consequently 
suspended. Then came Morton’s seizure and imprisonment, 
followed by the proceedings mentioned in the text, Leycester’s 
letter above inserted, instructions to Randolph how to defend 
Morton from the charge of murdering the King’s father (vol. xxix. 
No. 5), a private memorial to Randolph to win the captains of 
Edinburgh and Dumbarton castles to the devotion of Elizabeth 
(No. 8), a commission by Elizabeth to Hunsdon as Captain- 
General of the army of the north to invade Scotland. Wal- 
singham stirs up Randolph, a few days before Leycester’s letter, 
by telling him that his “ request for a fee-farm may be obtained 
if he can procure Morton’s liberty” (No. 23, 3d February 1581). 
“The preachers to be instructed to stir up the people’s minds” 
(No. 24). Bowes reports—“ Morton’s safety is only to be won 
by surprising Lenox and the Court, or by some other like forcible 
action. Queen’s forces not sufficient” (No. 42). Walsingham 
replies with “ Doubts about using violence—little credit to be 
got in the matter,” . . . “ wherein we are very doubtful and 
irresolute” (No. 44). But even Randolph at last replies—“ So 
much has fallen out against Morton that there is little chance of 
saving his life.” Then Elizabeth tries a compromise—Morton to 
suffer imprisonment for life, and conditions also for Archibald 
Douglas (No. 57). But this also fails: Morton suffers; the 
plots instantly cease; and Elizabeth’s friendly relations with King 
James are at once resumed. 


MARY STUART. 


ii 5 

trial, was found guilty of foreknowledge, art and part, 
of Darnley’s murder, and was sentenced to death. 

Before he was executed he made some important 
revelations to the ministers who attended him. 1 He 
stated that, after his return from his banishment for 
“ Davie’s slaughter,” he met Both well at Whittingham, 
the residence of Archibald Douglas; that Bothwell 
proposed the Kings murder; that he (Morton) said 
he was but new out of trouble, and unwilling to get 
into trouble again; that then Archibald Douglas, who 
was present, urged him to agree; that Bothwell also 
urged him, and said it was the Queen s mind; and that 
he (Morton) asked to see the Queens “hand-write,” 
which Bothwell never produced to him. He said also 
that Archibald Douglas afterwards came to him at St. 
Andrews from Bothwell, to show him that the murder 
was near a point, and to request his concurrence; but 
that he gave no answer, seeing he had not got “ the 
Queen s hand-write.” “ Then being enquired whether 
he gave Mr. Archibald any command to be there? 
Morton answered, I never commanded him. Being 
enquired gif he gave him any counsel thereunto ? he 
answered, I never counselled him to it. Being enquired 
gif he gave him any counsel in the contrair? he answered, 
I never counselled him in the contrair. After this, 
following forth the same discoorse, he said, ‘ Mr. Archi¬ 
bald after the deed was done shew to me that he was 
at the deed doing, and came to the Kirk of Field yeard 


Laing, ii. 323. 2d June 1581. 


MARY STUART. 


116 

with the Earls Both well and Huntly.’ Then being 
enquired if he received Mr. Archibald after the murder ? # 
he answered, I did indeed.” He also acknowledged 
that he, with others of the nobility, subscribed a bond, 
that if any should lay the murder to Bothwell’s charge 
they would assist him in the contrary. Last of all, it 
was said to him that, “ in respect of his own deposition, 
his part would be suspected to be more foul nor he 
declared; he speired (asked) for what reason. It was 
answered, Ye being in authority, howbeit ye punished 
others for the murder, yet ye punished not Mr. Archi¬ 
bald, whom ye knew to be guilty thereof. He answered, 

I punished him not indeed, neither durst I ” Morton 
died on the scaffold adhering to these statements. 

It had always been a disputed point whether 
Darnley was killed by the explosion, or strangled and 
carried out before it; and one of the worthy ministers 
who attended Morton to the scaffold thought this an 
excellent opportunity to satisfy his curiosity. So, 
after solemnly adjuring Morton to speak the truth, as 
a man on the brink of eternity, he asked, “ Was he 
worried or blawn in the air ?” But Morton was not 
disposed to say more, and referred evasively to the 
depositions of those who had been examined about it. 

Here, then, we have not the whole truth, but a 
very important fragment of the truth. And it is re¬ 
markable that the meeting of Morton and Bothwell at 
Archibald Douglas’s house was known at the time to 
Elizabeth’s ministers. It is mentioned in a letter by 
Drury to Cecil, with the addition that Lethington was 


MARY STUART. 


117 

there. 1 Lethington was the man who six years before 
had predicted “ wonderful tragedies” if the Queen came 
to Scotland. 2 —We have another fragment of the truth 
in a remarkable correspondence which took place 
between Morton and Lethington some years before 
Morton’s conviction. Lethington, as well as Murray, 
had taken part with Morton in charging Mary with 
the murder; but Lethington repented and went over 
to the opposite side, upon which he was pursued and 
forfeited by his old friends for the murder, but kept 
out of their way. Lethington remonstrated against 
this proceeding being taken by Morton, “for a crime 
(he said) whereof he knoweth in his conscience I was 
as innocent as himself .” To which Morton replied, 
“ that I know him innocent in my conscience as my¬ 
self, the contrary thereof is true, for I was and am in¬ 
nocent thereof, but could not affirm the same of him, 
considering what I understand in that matter of his 
own confession to myself of before.”* 

Queen Elizabeth’s violence before Morton’s trial 
and execution was not more remarkable than her 
sudden attitude of quiescence whenever his mouth was 
shut. Did he hold some terrible secret whose dis¬ 
closure she feared ? 

Archibald Douglas kept himself safe in England 
till most of the witnesses died. Elizabeth held him 
for years in friendly confinement. 4 He sought and 

1 Drury, 23d January 1567 (Tytler, vii. 442). 

2 Ante , p. 16. 3 Laing, ii. 329. 

1 The character of his confinement was very remarkable 


118 


MARY STUART. 


betrayed the confidence of all parties. He tried to 
ingratiate bimself even with the imprisoned Mary as 
well as the rest. She answered that she could have 
nothing to do with him unless he could satisfy her that 
he was innocent of her husband’s murder ; and Archi¬ 
bald thereupon sent her a very remarkable letter, which, 
with stout denials of his own guilt, gives us some other 
and important fragments of the truth. He says that 
while in banishment in 1566 with Morton and his com¬ 
rades, he was sent by them to Scotland to deal with Mur¬ 
ray, Bothwell, Lethington, and others. He must have 
come secretly, for he was an outlaw, though in conference 
with the Queen’s chief ministers. They informed him 
that they had joined in a bond against Darnley; and 
that if Morton and his comrades would enter into the 
confederacy they would endeavour to procure their par¬ 
don. Mr. Archibald (that is the name by which he 
was uniformly spoken of) tells that he delivered this 
message faithfully to Morton and his accomplices at 
Newcastle, where they all agreed to enter into the 
bond. He returned at the time of the young 
Prince’s baptism, and on reporting this the par¬ 
dons were procured. 1 Morton then immediately came 

During it, he continued the most intimate relations and corre¬ 
spondence with Elizabeth’s highest and most trusted councillors. 

1 “ With this deliberation, I returned to Stirling, when, at the 
request of the Most Christian King and the Queen’s Majesty of 
England, by their ambassadors present, your Majesty’s gracious 
pardon was granted to them all” (Archibald Douglas’s letter to 
Queen Mary ; Eobertson’s Appendix). 

Elizabeth herself wrote in the following year that Morton 


MARY STUART 


119 


to Whittingham, where Botliwell and Letliington 
joined him. Mr. Archibald tells that at Mortons 
desire he accompanied Bothwell and Lethington to 
Edinburgh, and was there instructed by them to tell 
Morton that “ the Queen would hear no speech of the 
matter they had spoken of,” 1 and he says they would 
give him no farther explanation. He refers to Mor¬ 
ton s confession, which had been published, yet he says 
not one word as to his own conversations with Morton 
about the murder, or his having told Morton that he 
was there when it was executed—but he adds for 
Mary's information, that the murder was done at the 
command of “ such of the nobility as had subscribed 
band for that effect;” and then he concludes that 
although he knew all this, yet “ it would not have 
been decent” in him to have accused the Earl of 
Morton, being so near of his kin. 

The charge against Queen Mary came to rest mainly 
on the authenticity of letters said to have been written 
by her to Bothwell before her husband's murder as 
well as afterwards—and if Bothwell had truly been in 
possession of these letters, he could have had no diffi- 

“ was restored for gratifying ns upon instance made by our 
order at the Earl of Bedford’s being with the Queen” (Elizabeth 
to Throkmorton, 27th July 1567, printed in Keith, 428). 

Morton, immediately on his return to Scotland, wrote to 
Cecil, expressing his gratitude to him for having instructed the 
Earl of Bedford to obtain his pardon and recall (10th January 
1566-7, Morton to Cecil; State Paper Office). ^ 

1 This seems to have been the occasion on which they at¬ 
tempted to get her to sign a warrant against Darnley. 


I 20 


MARY STUART. 


culty in satisfying the demand which Morton says he 
made, to see “the Queens hand write” on the matter. 
These statements also establish that within six weeks 
before Darnley’s death a formidable confederacy had 
been organised against him, which included all the 
leading men in the Government (all the men in fact 
who, after Darnley’s death, surrounded the widowed 
Queen), and combined with them, under a formal 
bond, the seventy-six conspirators who were pardoned 
at the young Prince’s baptism. 


MAR Y STUART. 


12 I 


CHAPTEB XVIII. 

There is a paper written by Murray, kept in 
the British Museum, in which he acknowledged 
that he had subscribed a bond with Bothwell, 
Huntly, and Argyle, in the month of October be¬ 
fore Darnley’s death. He said, “ it was devised in 
sign of our reconciliation, in respect of the former 
grudges and displeasures that had been among us.” 1 
Abstract love and charity of course he represents as the 
motive for this bond—between him and Huntly, whose 
father he had hunted to death—between him and Both¬ 
well, who had so often sought each other s lives. A 
bond could not be required unless there was to be some 
common action, and if there was to be common action, 
against whom was it to be directed ? Who was the 
common enemy ? Archibald Douglas says the bond 
which he was required by Murray, Bothwell, Argyle, 
and Lethington, to negotiate with Morton and his 
accomplices, was a bond directed against Darnley. 
Bothwell was in the same boat with Murray as to the 
Crown lands, and this community of interest may have 
helped to draw them together. But whatever the cause 
which brought them and Mortons party to unite in 
hostility to Darnley, their junction was plainly omi¬ 
nous to him. One man, the Laird of Ormiston, after he 
1 Goodall, ii. 322 ; Laing, ii. 315. 


122 


MARY STUART. 


was condemned to be banged as an accomplice in the 
murder, confessed, before his execution, that he was 
one of Bothwell’s party at the deed; and that Both- 
well showed him after the murder a bond, devised by 
Sir James Balfour, and subscribed a quarter of a year 
before the deed was done. He observed particularly 
the subscriptions of Huntly, Argyle, Lethington, and 
Balfour; and its terms, as he remembered, were “ that 
the nobles thought it expedient that sic a young fool 
and proud tyran 1 should not rule over them, and that 
they had concluded that he should be put off by ane 
way or ither, and that whosoever should take the deed 
in hand they should defend and hold it done by them¬ 
selves/' 2 

Some of Bothwell’s other servants were seized and 
executed for the murder. They died acknowledging 
their own guilt, and protesting the Queen s innocence. 
And they named their master, with Murray, Lethington, 
and Balfour as chiefs in compassing Darnley’s death. 3 

1 Laing, ii. 294. 

2 The phrase coincides singularly with Murray’s description of 
Darnley to the Duke of Norfolk, “a young proud fool” (Leslie’s 
Negotiations in Anderson’s Collections , iii. 38). 

8 Archbishop of Glasgow to Cardinal of Lorraine, 6th Febru¬ 
ary 1568 :—“ Envyrons les festes de Noel dernier douze ou quinze 
des principaux serviteurs, du Conte Badouel, furent pris pri- 
sonniers aux Isles des Orcades par Monsieur de St. Croix, l’un des 
freres batard de la Boyne, qui pour le jourd’huy s’est faict Conte 
desdites Isles lesquels par tempeste de la mer furent contraincts 
y prendre terre, et apres menez a Lislebourg, et accusez de 
meurtre furent condamnez a mort, et toutefois executez en 
prison pour ce que quelques ungs d’eulx ayans demand^ de grace 


MARY STUART 


123 


The precise mode of the King s death has always 
been disputed. Buchanan, who no doubt visited the 
scene of the murder and probably saw the body, 
and who was in a position to know as much of the 
truth as it was safe for the chiefs of the conspiracy to 
reveal, tells that Darnley was taken in a deep sleep, 
and strangled, with his servant, carried out to an ad¬ 
joining garden, and the house blown up afterwards. 
He tells also that there were three bands of conspira¬ 
tors who came by different roads. Knox, who likewise 
had excellent opportunities of ascertaining the truth, re¬ 
cords that many said the King was blown in the air, 
albeit he had no mark of fire; and then he adds, with 
a significance which shows he had sure information, 
wherever he got it, “he was strangled.” Sir James 
Melville hints that this was accomplished by pressing 
a wet towel on his mouth till he died,—in short he 
was burked; and this accounts for the absence of 
marks on the body. 

One of the three parties who went to the murder 
was BothwelTs. It is uncertain whether Bothwell was 
in the secret of Darnley being strangled before the ex¬ 
plosion. His men certainly were not. They avowed 
that they had blown up the house, but declared that the 

estre ouy par le Conte de Mouray confesserent bien avoir merite 
la mort, declarant Vinnocence de la Boyne , et accusent lesplus grands 
et principaux de son conseil qui assistoient lois avec luy, et mesmes 
le Conte de Morthon, et le secretaire Ledinton , et Balfour , qui estoit 
Capitaine de Chateau de Lislebourg, et ledit Conte leur mais- 
tre en Dannemar” (Sloane Coll. 319*9, pp. 158-60—British 
Museum). 


124 


MARY STUART. 


King “ was handled by no mans hands that they knew 
of” There was a conspiracy within the conspiracy. 
The truth seems to be that Both well’s party had the 
clumsy part of the work assigned to them. And so 
clumsy was it, perhaps planned so intentionally, that 
the directors of the conspiracy could at any moment 
bring the murder home to Both well. Two horse-loads 
of powder were brought from Dunbar to Bothwell’s 
lodgings, and on the night of the murder were carried 
on horses’ backs through the streets to the Kirk of 
Field. The powder was then carried in by eight men, 
and deposited in the lower floor below the King’s room. 
This must have been done while the Queen was with 
Darnley in his apartment up-stairs. Two men were 
left with the powder till all should be quiet above, and 
that there might be no mistake they were locked into 
the room with the powder. There they remained one 
hour, two hours, nearly three, and at last they were let 
out, and told to proceed with their work. They lighted 
a slow match, which they called a “ lunt,” remained 
at a safe distance till the house blew up, and then fled. 
This was all they knew, except that they saw three 
men in cloaks who were not of their party, and who 
kept their faces concealed, and wore slippers. One of 
these men at least had armour under his cloak. Both- 
well was undisguised. 

Who were the men in disguise ? and where the 
other two bands of which Buchanan speaks? 

Archibald Douglas’ servants, Binning and another, 
were caught, tried, condemned, and executed for the 


MAR Y STUART. 


I2 5 


murder, a short time before Morton’s conviction. 
They confessed that they went to the murder with 
their master ;* that he was in armour and had slippers 
on his feet. 1 Archibald himself, it will be remembered, 
reported to Morton that he was at the doing of the 
deed. He therefore was probably the disguised man 
in armour ^hom Both well’s servants saw. He re¬ 
presented Morton’s party.—Who were the others in 
disguise ? That has never been ascertained with cer¬ 
tainty. From Morton’s confession we may infer that 
Huntly was one. Some circumstances indicate that 
Sir James Balfour was the third. The universal belief 
of the time pointed to him as an actor at the murder. 
Buchanan says without doubt he was one of the chiefs. 
Lord Hunsdon wrote 2 from Berwick to Randolph nam¬ 
ing Balfour as one of the principal murderers, and there 
is in the British Museum a strange letter by Balfour 
to Cecil, boldly claiining his, and if necessary Eliza¬ 
beth’s own interposition, to protect him and his bro¬ 
thers from the peril of being tried for the murder, with 
a mysterious warning that any “ inconveniences which 
may arise are not to be imputed to him. 

1 Buchanan, ii. 517. 

2 3d February 1581 (State Papers, Scotland, vol. xxix. No. 
24). 

3 Cotton MSS., Caligula, c. 4, f. 6, British Museum. 


126 


MARY STUART. 


CHAPTER XIX. 

Sir James Balfour and Archibald Douglas were men 
of such clerkly skill and mark that they were after¬ 
wards rewarded by Murray and Morton with seats 
on the Bench. Balfour is named by Knox “ as blas¬ 
phemous Balfour/' He became Lord President of the 
Court of Session. His work on the practice of law 
was long a standard authority. At the time of the 
murder he was Lord Clerk-Register. 1 We may sur¬ 
mise that these men were deputed by the chiefs to 
regulate the action of the three distinct bodies of con¬ 
spirators, so that each might do its assigned work 
while ignorant of the work, and perhaps even of the 
presence, of the others. Archibald and Balfour held 
the key of the conspiracy. Unknown themselves, 
knowing all, directing all, keeping in their hands the 
lives of all, perhaps preparing the evidence by which 
they could let vengeance loose on either of the active 
sections of the conspiracy at their will. Such a scheme 
might have been Morton's. Whether he was present 

1 Robert Melville’s letter, 22d October 1566, quoted in 
Chalmers, ii. 467 ; Keith, 351. Melville’s letter says—“ Darnley 
was dissatisfied because he could not get the secretary (Maitland) 
the Justice-Clerk, and the Clerk-Register put out of their 
offices.” 


MARY STUART. 


127 


himself, or whether he was content to leave the 
business to his cousin and lieutenant, Archibald 
Douglas, it would not be easy to decide. Yet surely 
it is strange that lawyers should have been chosen. 
That could scarcely be for the mere butchery. Is 
there any purpose for which men of such skill could 
have been specially wanted ? 

And now we touch a point which from that hour 
to this seems to have escaped discussion. What be¬ 
came of Darnley' s papers ? Darnley had been made 
the focus of one terrible conspiracy. He held the 
bond which would have shown the participation in it 
of Murray and many more whose pardon had excepted 
that crime. He might possibly have held papers that 
would have compromised Randolph, or Randolph's em¬ 
ployers. His position had long been such as must 
have encouraged desperate men to approach him. His 
papers, therefore, might be expected to make great 
revelations. If he had been simply strangled, these 
dangerous papers would have fallen into the hands of 
the Queen. If the house had been blown up at once, 
they would probably have been scattered broadcast 
over the streets of Edinburgh. But if Darnley and 
his servant were first strangled, Archibald and Balfour 
could ransack the papers, and, when they had made 
all safe, the explosion would hide all. And this helps 
us to understand also why the men in disguise were so 
strangely equipped with slippers. 

Thus, then, we have (1) the burJcing party. Was 
it Hamilton's ? The house of the Hamiltons was close 


128 


MARY STUART. 


to the Kings house, and the archbishop who lived 
there, and was a Hamilton, 1 did not escape grave sus¬ 
picion, and was put to death by Morton on that 
charge ; (2) the exploding party, which was cer¬ 
tainly Both wells. We shall come to the third party 
by and by. 

There is a notable gap in the documents at the 
State Paper Office of the time of Darnley’s murder. 
For a month before, and almost a month after it, the 
reports of the English agents at Edinburgh have 
disappeared. These had hitherto been constant and 
copious, with the minutest information of everything 
that went on. The communications on this subject 
must have been numerous and important; how much 
so we can judge from their graphic fulness of detail at 
the time of Biccio’s death. They may have been 
taken out to form a special collection, and' if so their 
discovery will some day tell the whole of this horrid 
tale in its naked and minutest particulars. But what 
if they touched some great personage ? Was it Mary ? 
If so, their loss would be accounted for by supposing 
that James on his succession sought to obliterate traces 
of her guilt. Yet if they had contained disclosures 
fatal to Mary, would Elizabeth have withheld them 
when she prompted and persuaded Murray and his 
comrades to charge her with the murder, as she un- 

1 “ John Hamilton, Archbishop of St. Andrews, watched from 
the highest room adjoining the house till the explosion, then 
extinguished the lights and forbade his servants to go out” 
(Buchanan in Anderson’s Collections , ii. 68). 


MARY STUART. 


129 


doubtedly did, when Mary was her prisoner in Eng¬ 
land ? Or during the long years when she wreaked 
her vengeance upon Mary, and at last persecuted her 
to death ? It may be that Elizabeth, in some strange 
fit of returning affection for Mary, might have ordered 
these papers to be destroyed.—Or what if they touched 
herself? that would explain her frantic efforts for 
Morton, her attempt to stir up insurrection, her threats 
of war, her placing an army on the frontier to prevent 
justice being done upon him. 

Yet, however carefully the State Papers have been 
weeded, one important letter on this subject had got 
among the Border correspondence, and remains. It is 
a letter from Drury at Berwick to Cecil r 1 —“ The King 
was long of dying, and to his strength made debate 
for his life.” “ It was Captain Cullen s persuasion for 
more surety to have the King strangled, and not to 
trust to the train of powder alone, affirming that he 
had known many so saved. Sir Andrew Carr with 
others was on horseback, near unto the place, for aid 
to the cruel enterprize if need had been.” What a 
revelation is this ! Known to the English Court, con¬ 
cealed in Scotland 2 by Murray, Morton, and their com- 

1 24th April 1567 (State Paper MS., Border correspond¬ 
ence ; Strickland, v. 17 9). 

2 17th June 1567. John Beaton’s letter (Laing, ii. 115) 
says—“ They tewk Capt. Culain that neight they entered the 
town quha has been ay sensyn in the Irnis [irons].” Tytler (vii. 
203) says—“ It was notorious that Cullen revealed the whole 
circumstances” (Drury to Cecil, 14th June 1567, B. C. Berwick; 
Scrope to Cecil, 16th June 1567, Carlisle, B. C.) 

K 


130 


MAR Y STUART. 


rades, kept from the world till that letter was found 
in recent times. Here, then, was the watching party 
of the conspirators—the third party spoken of by 
Buchanan. And who was Andrew Carr, the leader of 
this party ? The villain who put his cocked pistol to 
Mary s breast on the night of Riccio’s death—he whom 
she had specially excepted from pardon, even when she 
pardoned Morton and the rest—and Carr was still an 
outlaw—the last man in the world who would have 
served Mary, or who would have been employed in 
her work. 

We know by the confession of some of the mur¬ 
derers that the original purpose was to have got 
Darnley out into the fields on some pretext, and to 
have slain him there; but that, two days before the 
murder, there was a change of plan, and it was deter¬ 
mined to use gunpowder. 1 This change coincides so 
closely in date with the warning' given by Murray’s 
half-brother, the Lord Robert Stewart, to Darnley, and 
his denial of it when the Queen endeavoured to get at 
the truth, that there was probably some connection 
between the two things. Bothwell when he died 
named the Lord Robert, along with Murray, Morton, 
Lethington, and others, as in the conspiracy for the 
murder. 2 It is therefore not improbable that the Lord 
Robert gave this warning to Darnley to terrify him 
into flight, that he might be caught farther from the 
city; then we could understand why he denied the 

1 Hepburn’s Declaration, 8th December 1567 (Laing, ii. 256). 

2 Laing, ii. 309. 


MARY STUART. 


131 

warning when Mary set inquiries on foot. If there 
was a scheme of that kind, it helps us also to see the 
use of Carr and his horsemen. 

What if this scheme was really pursued to the 
last ? What if Archibald Douglas, the King's cousin, 
fearing that the servants in the neighbouring room 
might be roused by cries of murder, stole into the 
King s apartment while he was asleep, touched him, 
woke him, hushed him to silence, warned him that his 
murderers were at hand, that the house was mined 
and about to be blown up, and urged him to escape ? 
There may have been ominous sounds to enforce the 
warning, and compel instant action. What if Darnley 
snatched up his clothes, threw his fur about him, 
and fled with Douglas, followed by his servant—and 
led into the arms of the assassins ? In that case 
the assassins would be Douglases, and we get the 
meaning of the cry for “ Mercy, my cousins !” If their 
work was well done, Archibald Douglas was but the 
man in the mask. If by any chance the King had 
escaped, Archibald Douglas had saved the King s life ! 
In every event Archibald was secure—and Andrew 
Carr, with his horsemen, were ready.—This is conjec¬ 
ture. But it would reconcile most of the known facts, 
and it accords with all we know of Archibald and 
Morton, of Darnley’s weakness, and of the scheme and 
scope of the conspiracy. 


132 


MARY STUART 


CHAPTER XX. 

Surrounded as the Queen was before and after the 
murder, what chance had she to hear the truth— any 
truth that was dangerous to the conspirators? If they 
showed her the placards, she would there find herself 
charged with being an accomplice with Both well and 
others in the murder. Knowing that to be an out¬ 
rageous slander on herself, she would naturally conclude 
that it was equally so on them. And if herself inno¬ 
cent, Both well was the very last of her lords whom she 
could suspect of having cause of quarrel with the King. 
He was almost the only man who had supported 
Darnley, and it is certain he was not of those to whom 
Darnley had demonstrated antipathy. The wild 
scheme of ambition which Bothwell afterwards pur¬ 
sued, had probably not clearly developed itself even in 
his own mind till after Darnley’s death. Dreams he 
may have had. But the scheme which he finally exe¬ 
cuted seems to have been the growth of opportunity. 

The Queen, after the murder, shut herself up in a 
dark chamber, and kept it till her physicians interposed 
for her health, and insisted on her going to Seaton. On 
8th March, when Killigrew saw her, she was still in a 
dark chamber, and seemed in profound grief. 1 Two such 

1 MS. State Paper Office—Killigrew to Cecil, 8th March 1567. 
Printed by Chalmers, i. 209. 


MARY STUART. 


i33 


tragedies as had fallen on her household during 
the last twelvemonth, were enough to shatter 
the nerves of any woman. She had long lived 
in such an atmosphere of conspiracy, the few 
weeks before Darnley's death had been so full of 
alarming rumours, her warning from France was so 
significant, that she must have felt herself in a position 
of the greatest danger. We know by a letter which 
she wrote soon after, that she believed the catastrophe 
which cost Darnley his life had been intended for her 
also. On the night on which it occurred it was her first 
intention to have slept at the Kirk of Field, as she had 
done most of the previous week. 1 She was there till a 
late hour, and had left only on being reminded that it 
was the night of her servant's wedding. Her accidental 
absence, as she believed, saved her life. When she be¬ 
gan to recover and reflect after the stunning effects of 
the blow, she received a new warning from her am¬ 
bassador at Paris that some further plot was still to be 
executed against her. 2 No explanation was given, and 
she was bewildered. She knew that she must run her 

1 Chalmers, i. 206. 

2 The Archbishop of Glasgow, in writing to the Queen from 
Paris, 11th March 1567, said “that the Spanish ambassador, 
when he thanked him in the Queen’s name for the warning he 
had given before the King’s murder, though it unhappily arrived 
too late, replied, ‘ Suppose it came too late, yet apprise her 
Majesty that I am informed, by the same means as I was before, 
that there is still some notable enterprise in hand against her f whereof 
I wish her to beware in time (Sloane M.S. iii. 199; Strickland, 
v. 239). 


134 


MARY STUART. 


own risk, but she determined to take precautions for 
the safety of her child, the heir of the crown. She 
placed him in charge of the Earl of Mar, and lodged 
him in the castle of Stirling. 1 If Both well had then had 
the control, would he have permitted this ? When he 
came to power his first effort was to get the Prince into 
his hands, 2 but Mar justified Mary’s judgment, and 
withstood him. He withstood Murray also, after he 
became Regent. He pledged himself to Mary, even 
while she was a prisoner, that he would keep his faith, 
and in this respect he kept it. 

But it has been said, Why were not more energetic 
means used to detect the murderers ? We remember 
how, in the year before, the arm of the law was 
paralysed by the contrivance of secret traitors, when 
the Queen was most urgent to have it executed against 
the murderers of Riccio. That murder was committed 
before the face of hundreds, yet not more than one man 
who planted his dagger in Riccio’s body was ever 
brought to justice. The confederacy was more power¬ 
ful now, for Both well and Huntly had joined it. Did 
Murray tell her that Bothwell was the murderer, and 
must be hanged ? Far from it. A month after the 
murder he and Bothwell, as we find from letters in the 
State Paper Office, sat at the same convivial table with 
the English ambassador. 3 

1 This was on 19th March (Birrel’s Diary). “ 19th March 
1567.—Prince sent to Stirling to the Earl of Mar in keeping” 
(Diurnal of Occurrents). 

2 Melville (Bann.), 179. 

3 8th March 1567 (Chalmers ii. 347, note, and i. 209, where 


MAR Y STUART 


1 35 


But Darnley’s father, the Earl of Lennox, wrote to 
the Queen, and charged Bothwell with the murder, 
saying that he did so on the strength of the anony¬ 
mous placards. She instantly ordered Bothwell to 
trial. And they had to bring him to trial. Morton 
and Lethington stood beside him at his trial and sup¬ 
ported him. 1 It was a collusive trial from beginning 
to end. But how could the Queen know that ? The 
fact that he was acquitted would of course be reported 
to her. Possibly the legal evidence of his acquittal 
would be shown to her, but it is unreasonable to sup¬ 
pose that she could be informed of the details which 
they wished to conceal. 

And what were Murray and all the rest of the Go¬ 
vernment occupied with in that time ? Cecil, Murray’s 
confidant at the English Court, who was as much be¬ 
hind the scenes as any man alive, wrote early in March 2 
to Sir Henry Norreys, the English ambassador in 
France, that “ Morton, Murray, and others, mean to be 
at Edinburgh very shortly, as they pretend to search 
out the malefactor.” And Murray on the 13th day of 

the letter is printed). It is a curious circumstance, and shows how 
little even a well-informed man foresaw the storm which was 
then so close at hand, that Killigrew, the ambassador of England, 
says in this letter, “ I see no troubles at present, nor appearance 
thereof.” 

1 Chalmers, i. 212, note. 

‘ E 2 Chalmers, ii. 349, note; Cabala, 126. Elizabeth herself, 
in some of her moods, spoke of Murray and his friends as “ re¬ 
bels pretending reformation of religion” (Randolph to Cecil, 17th 
June 1566; Hayne, 449). 


136 


MAR Y STUART 


March 1 wrote two letters, one to Cecil begging a safe 
conduct in all convenient haste (he seems to have been 
providing a timely retreat in case of miscarriage), and 
another 2 to Throkmorton speaking of accidents proceed¬ 
ing from the bottom of wickedness, and announcing the 
determination of the party to “follow farther godly 
and gude purposes ” It is almost the language he 
used when he set out for Edinburgh on the day before 
Riccio’s murder. 3 That was what they professed to do. 
Let us see what they did. They and Bothwell, acting 
together in concert, within a fortnight after Darnley’s 
death summoned Parliament. For what purpose ? 
Conscious of their objects, Murray, Morton, and Leth- 
ington long afterwards represented it as a Parliament 
“ set only for the reduction of the forfeiture of the Earl 
of Huntly.” 4 But we know now from the Parliament¬ 
ary Eecords, printed in modern times, that that was 
not the whole business, nor a tithe of the business. The 
great business of that Parliament, in bulk and in im¬ 
portance, was to ratify to Murray, Morton, Lethington, 
Bothwell, and others of the confederates, their vast 
grants of the Crown lands. And of all the acts which 
were passed for that purpose, there is none so volumi¬ 
nous, or so elaborately framed, by half, as the act which 
secured his earldom and lands to Murray. It was that 
confirmation of his estates which Knox had spoken of 

1 Murray to Cecil (State Papers, Scotland, xiii. 25). 

2 Chalmers, ii. 348, note. 

3 Ante , p. 55. 

4 Murray’s Diary (Coodall, ii. 249); April 14,1567. 


MAR V STUART. 


137 


so bitterly, as influencing Murray's conduct, years 
before. 1 Murray bad succeeded in getting it at last.— 
Here then was a strange thing. The King had been 
murdered, under circumstances which were ringing 
through Europe. The Queen was prostrated with 
grief. Some of the murderers, as it turned out, were 
well known to them and acting with them, yet these 
great ministers of the Crown, instead of moving heaven 
and earth to bring them to justice, and discover the rest, 
set instantly about securing the Crown lands to them¬ 
selves. Within seventy days after Darnley's death they 
had got the Parliament convened and over, and their 
titles ratified. Why such unseemly haste to profit by 
Darnley's death, instead of punishing its perpetrators ? 
Darnley had been the chief hindrance to the ratifica¬ 
tion of these grants ; and to Murray and Bothwell, 
above them all, the ratification was a matter of especial 
moment, for they were overwhelmed with debt. 

Whether for that reason, or to be out of the way 
in case of discovery, or to concert further schemes with 
Cecil, and to secure the acquiescence of France, Murray 
proceeded to England and France a few days before the 
Parliament met. The act of ratification in his favour 
is so carefully prepared that it must have been in pro¬ 
gress, if not ready, when he left. And that his absence 
was not expected to deprive him of authority is proved 
by a bond which he granted to Huntly just before he 
left, in which he bound himself to promote in that 
Parliament the reduction of Huntly's forfeiture. 2 

1 Ante, p. 22. 2 Laing, ii. 299, dated 8th April 1567. 


l 3 8 


MARY STUART. 


These proceedings required a varnish, and so the 
confederates, Both well among the rest, joined in pass¬ 
ing a short act annulling all laws and constitutions, 
civil, canon or municipal, “ contrary to the religion” 
as it stood on the Queen s arrival from France. 

Mary’s slanderers have abused her as a most aban¬ 
doned woman; and Murray after he grasped the office 
of Regent gave some countenance to that cry against 
her, to keep himself in power. But time reveals strange 
things. Murray’s will has come to light. It is dated 
2d April 1567, a few days before his departure to Eng¬ 
land and France. It appointed five executors, and it 
named Mary Queen of Scots “ overish-woman 1 of my 
testament, to see all things handled and ruled for the 
weill of my dochter.” This daughter was his only child. 
Is it credible that he placed the education and charge 
of his only daughter in the hands of a woman whom 
he believed to be what he afterwards represented her, 
an abandoned woman and a murderess ? The truth is 
(as shall be shown afterwards), that the idea of charg¬ 
ing the Queen with the murder was not adopted till 
they were in desperate straits, eight months later. 


Umpire. 


MARY STUART 


*3 9 


CHAPTEK XXL 

The Crown lands were ratified to their possessors on the 
19th of April. On the same night the members of the 
Parliament were entertained by Bothwell, and after 
supper a bond was produced by Sir James Balfour, by 
which they bound themselves to sustain Both well’s 
acquittal, recommended him as the fittest husband for 
the Queen, and engaged to support him with their 
whole power, and to hold as enemies any who should 
presume to hinder the marriage. 1 Every man of them 
signed, except the Earl of Eglinton, who “ slipped away.” 
There is some doubt whether Murray’s name was at¬ 
tached to this bond. He was out of Scotland at the 
time it was produced, and on that ground it has been 
concluded that he did not sign it. On the other hand, 
there exists a memorandum by Cecil, taken by him 
from a clerk in the employment of Murray’s secretary, 
who had the custody of the bond, in which Murray’s 
signature is placed first. He may have signed it be¬ 
fore he left Scotland. The unanimity and prompti¬ 
tude with which it was signed by the rest would be 
promoted by his signature. 

Up to this time the conspirators had acted in 
perfect concert. The Crown lands were a bond of 
1 Keith (Spottis.), ii. 562. 


140 


MARY STUART 


union, and it seems to have been strong enough to hold 
them together till the close of the day on which a Parlia¬ 
mentary security was given to their title to these lands. 
The combination of interests which brought about these 
ratifications may have been purchased by some under¬ 
standing with Both well that they were to protect him, 
and promote his suit to the Queen. But the price of 
their adhesion to Both well had now been paid, and their 
connection with him had been unnatural from the first. 
He had been their antagonist for many years, and it 
was not fifteen months since they sought his life. 
Circumstances soon arose which they seized as a release 
from their engagements to him. 

Immediately after he had secured this bond for 
the marriage, Bothwell, according to a narrative 
written by Mary herself, began afar off to discover 
his intentions to her, and to assay “ gif he miclit by 
humil sute purches oure gude will, but fand oure 
answer nathing correspondent to his desyre.” 1 

Two days after the bond was granted by the no¬ 
bility to Bothwell, Mary proceeded from Edinburgh to 
Stirling to visit her child. Probably she wished, by 
leaving Edinburgh at this juncture, to indicate to 
Bothwell that her rejection of his approaches was 
decisive,—and he acted as if he thought so. His next 
step was that of a desperate man. 

On her return from Stirling, three days later, 2 he 
suddenly met her at Foulbriggs with an armed force 
of from 700 to 1000 horsemen, seized her, made her 
1 Labanoff, ii. 37. 2 24th April 1567. 


MARY STUART. 


141 

escort prisoners, and carried her off to his castle at 
Dunbar. He there kept her for eleven or twelve days. 
When she resisted his insolence, he produced the bond 
granted to him by the nobility, and she there found 
the signatures of every man from whom she could 
have expected help. Hot one moved a finger in her 
defence. Huntly and Lethington, who were there 
with Bothwell, would not fail to remind her of the 
calamities which she had brought upon herself by 
opposing the policy of her nobles in her former mar¬ 
riage. Here was a match offered, and recommended 
by them all, under an engagement which almost im¬ 
plied rebellion if she did not comply, and it precisely 
answered the conditions which Murray had laid down 
for her former marriage, 1 and which so many had taken 
up arms to enforce, when she was much stronger in 
nerve and much more powerfully supported. Both¬ 
well was native born. He was not her choice. He 
was shown by the bond to be the choice of her nobility. 
He was a Protestant, and she could not forget how he 
had commended himself to their favour by sternly 
resisting the mass. Day after day she held out, but 
no help came. Sir James Melville, who had been 
taken prisoner with her, records that such violence 
was at last used to her that she had no longer a choice. 
Bothwell, in his dying confession, said that he accom¬ 
plished his purpose “by the use of sweet waters.” 
Morton’s proclamations charged him with using vio¬ 
lence to the Queen, “ and other more unleisum means.” 

1 See ante , p. 33. 


142 


MARY STUART. 


It seems not unlikely, therefore, that he employed some 
sweetened potion. She herself tells us that “in the 
end, when she saw no hope to be ridd of him, never 
man in Scotland ance making a mint for her deliver¬ 
ance, she was driven to the conclusion, from their hand 
writes and silence, that he had won them all.” He 
partly extorted and partly obtained her consent to 
marriage. 

Bothwell then conveyed the humbled and heart¬ 
broken Queen, surrounded by a great force, to the 
castle of Edinburgh. He next carried her before 
the judges, after lining the streets and crowding the 
court and passages with his armed retainers. She 
there submitted to make a declaration that she “ for¬ 
gave him of all hatred conceived by her for taking 
and imprisoning her ;” 1 and also that she was now at 
liberty. The necessity for such a declaration implies 
previous coercion. 2 Morton and the others who had 
given their bond to Bothwell for the marriage, were so 
conscious of the pressure which they had put on the 
Queen, that on the 14 th of May they obtained from 
her a promise, written below their bond, promising on 
the word of a princess “ that she nor her successoris 

1 Anderson, vol. i. p. 87. 

2 By the ancient law of Scotland the guilt of rape was effaced 
by the woman’s subsequent acquiescence, and it was not till 
1612 (c. 4) that the effect of such acquiescence was limited to 
saving his life (Hume On Crimes , i. 306). The woman’s declara¬ 
tion did not need to be on oath, but must be in freedom, and 
hence Bothwell required that the Queen should declare herself 
free. 


MARY STUART. 


M3 


sail never impute as cryme or offence to onie of tlie 
personis subscryveris thairof thaire consent and sub¬ 
scription to the matter above written thairin con- 
tainit; nor that thai nor thair heires sail never be 
callit nor accusit thairfoir: nor yet sail the said con¬ 
sent or subscryving be onie derogation or spott to thair 
honor, or thai esteemit undewtifull subjects for doing 
thairof." 1 

A marriage was formally solemnised, 2 and so little 
was her will consulted that it was in the Protestant 
form. An old writer remarks, that “ there was neither 
pleasure nor pastime at it." 3 Craig, the minister who 
proclaimed the banns, went like a bold and honest 
man to Bothwell, told him to his face that he objected 
to the marriage because he had forced the Queen, and 
when he could get no assurance from Bothwell that 
the marriage should be staid, he took the first oppor- 


1 Laban, ii. 22. 

2 The marriage was celebrated on 15th May 1567. 

8 “ April 21, 1567.—Queen went to Stirling to visit Prince. 

“ 24th.—Her seizure by Bothwell. 

“ 29 th.—Divorce intentit by Jean Gordon against Bothwell 
before Commissaries of Edinburgh. 

“ May 3.—Sentence of divorce. 

“ 6th.—Queen, Bothwell, Huntly, Lethington, and all that 
Bothwell might, came from Dunbar. Artillery of Castle shot 
maist magnificently—raid to Castle, Bothwell leading Queen by 
bridle. 

“ 8th.—Proclamation of marriage. James Balfour made 
captain of the Castle, and received the keys. 

« 15th.—Marriage, not with the mass, but with preaching. 
Neither pleasure nor pastime at it ” (Diurnal of Occurrents). 


144 


MARY STUART. 


tunity of denouncing it from the pulpit. Craig, with 
equal manliness, while Mary was a prisoner in Loch- 
leven, bore his public testimony in the next General 
Assembly, and no man contradicted him, that he stood 
almost alone in opposing the marriage, and that “ the 
best part of the realm did approve it, either by flattery 
or by their silence /' 1 

Du Croc wrote to Catherine de Medicis, three days 
after the marriage , 2 that on Thursday, the very day of 
the marriage, “ her Majesty sent to ask me whether I 
had observed a strangeness of demeanour between her 
and her husband, which she begged me to excuse, say¬ 
ing that if I saw that she was melancholy it was be¬ 
cause she could never wish to be happy again, desiring 
nothing but death. Yesterday (this was two days 
after the marriage), when closeted alone with Both- 
well, she was heard to cry as loud as she could to give 
her a knife to kill herself. Those who were in the 
front room heard her. They thought that if God did 
not help her she would be driven to desperation. I 
have advised and consoled her as much as I could on 
the three occasions on which I have seen her. He 
will not be long her husband, he is too much hated in 
this kingdom." 

Sir James Melville 3 relates that “the Queen was sa 
disdainfully handlet, and with sic reprocheful language, 
that Arthur Askin and I being present hard hir ask a 

1 Keith, old edition, p. 587. 

2 18th May 1567. From the French in Tytler, vii. 456. 

3 Melville’s Memoirs (Bannatyne edition), p. 180. 


MARY STUART. 


i45 


knyfe to stik herself, “ or ellis,” said sche, “ I sail drown 
myself ." 1 

That Bothwell had acted precipitately and from 
impulse on finding that the Queen was indisposed to 
admit his pretensions, is manifest from this, that when 
he carried her off to Dunbar his plans were so ill 
matured that marriage was impossible. The young 
wife whom he had wedded the year before was alive; 
and he had actually to get a process of divorce 
commenced after the Queen was his prisoner. The 
divorce 2 w r as begun and ended in a few days, before he 
brought the Queen from Dunbar. 

It has been often asserted that his seizure of Mary 
was collusive. But any woman, to whom a choice 
was left, would have insisted, according to the old 
Scotch saying, on his being “ off with the old love 
before he was on with the new." An ingenious theory 
was necessary, and was contrived by Lethington, to 
make her conduct even intelligible, on the supposition 
that she prearranged with Bothwell to carry her off 

1 Hume, who in general writes very unfavourably of Mary, 
says that during her imprisonment in England she recovered 
“ by means of her misfortunes and her own natural good sense,” 
from what he calls “ that delirium into which she seems to have 
been thrown during her attachment to Bothwell,” and “ behaved 
with such modesty and judgment, and even dignity, that every 
one who approached her was charmed with her demeanour, and 
her friends were enabled on some plausible grounds to deny the 
reality of all those crimes which had been imputed to her.” 

2 It was not begun before the 1st of May. See Duke of 
Norfolk’s letter, Goodall, ii. 141, and Murray’s answer, Goodall, 
ii. 144. See also Goodall, ii. 25 0. 

L 


146 


MARY ST [/ART. 


with a show .of force. The object was said to be that 
she might have an excuse for giving him a general 
pardon for treason, which would cover all crimes, and 
so protect him for the murder of the King. 1 It has 
been assumed by almost all who have written on the 
subject that such a pardon was granted. But a care¬ 
ful search of the records has disclosed no trace of it; 
and indeed it may be regarded as certain that it never 
existed, because, if it had, it would have barred the 
proceedings which subsequently took place for Both- 
well’s forfeiture, and evidence of its having been 
granted must also have been brought forward in the 
discussions which took place before Elizabeth, between 
Mary’s commissioners and the Begent Murray. 

1 “ Lethington told us there could be no device in lawe to 
pardon his foul fact of the murder, affirming that by the laws of 
that realme a pardon for great offences includeth all lesser facts 
and offences, but extendeth to none greater than that which is 
pardoned; and therefore, unless he should commit the highest 
offence, which is treason, as he did in laying violent hands upon 
his sovereigne, no pardon could serve to excuse him of the 
murder, and having his pardon for the treason it sufficeth also 
for the murder” (Norfolk’s letter in Goodall, ii. 142). 


MARY STUART. 


147 


CHAPTER XXII. 

Now that Bothwell had leapt over the heads of his 
fellows, he began rapidly to draw the reins of power 
into his hands. He was hereditary Lord High Admiral 
of Scotland. The necessity of the Queen s service had 
made him also Commander-in-Chief. The principal fort¬ 
resses of the kingdom were in the hands of his creatures. 
Stirling Castle was an exception; and it was the place 
to which Mary had sent her child for safety. Bothwell 
now demanded the custody of the Prince, and that de¬ 
mand was probably the cause of the terrible scene in 
which Mary threatened to seek relief in suicide.—He 
divided the Privy Council into four sections, which 
were to come in prescribed succession to attend to the 
public business, while he as the Queen s husband would 
preside at all their deliberations. It was now the 
middle of May; Morton s turn was not to come till the 
end of July, and was then to last for six weeks. Both- 
welTs aim was to secure himself in power, and he seems 
to have thought it necessary for that purpose to make 
himself absolute. Perhaps it was his only chance, but 
it precipitated his downfall. 

He had never got over his quarrel with Elizabeth. 
She must soon have seen how little chance there would 


148 


MARY STUART. 


be of her policy continuing to control Scotland, if he 
were permitted to make himself despotic, or even to 
preponderate in the government. 

At this crisis, accordingly, a communication reached 
Morton from the English Court, couched, remarkably 
enough, in language almost identical with that which 
Elizabeth had used more than a year before, when she 
wished to exclude Bothwell from acting as the Scotch 
commissioner on Border disputes. 1 The communication 
to Morton was, that in England they could by no means 
allow of Bothwell , and it gave him to understand, in 
terms which were very intelligible to a hireling of Eng¬ 
land, that “ such as before and after the murder were 
deemed to allow of Bothwell,” 2 were now expected to 
go on a different course. Mary’s marriage to Bothwell 
had been completed on the 15th of May. This com¬ 
munication was dated the 23d. Whether it was 
wholly the cause or no, it is certain that from that time 
the confederates to a man abandoned Bothwell, and 
went on the opposite tack. 

Sir James Balfour held the castle of Edinburgh. 
He had been deeply engaged in the conspiracy, and 
owed his appointment to Bothwell. Sir James Mel¬ 
ville (the same who records the violence which com¬ 
pelled Mary’s submission at Dunbar) tells also that he 
was himself employed at this time by Morton’s party 

1 Letter of Queen Elizabeth to Randolph, 2d February 1565-6 
(Lansdown MSS. viii.; Ellis’ second series, ii. 303 ; Froude, viii. 
234). “ In no wise if we may choose can we allow of Bothwell.” 

2 Robertson, Appendix No. 21, p. 257. 


MAR Y STUART 


149 


to corrupt Balfour . 1 He warned Balfour that unless 
he now joined against Both well he would he held 
guilty as art and part of the murder. And he 
tells us he succeeded. This is confirmed and ex¬ 
plained by a very extraordinary bond entered into 
by Balfour, and remaining among the Morton 
papers, by which he promises to aid the conspira¬ 
tors with the castle of Edinburgh, and they bind 
themselves to take part with and defend him “ in all 
his past actions,” which from Melville's statement 
refers especially to the King's murder, and in fact im¬ 
plies almost an acknowledgment of it; and they bind 
themselves also to continue him in charge of the castle, 
and promote him in public office . 2 This transaction 
proved fatal to Mary. Melville adds that Balfour 
showed his distrust of the good faith of the other con¬ 
spirators by stipulating that Kirkcaldy of Grange 
should promise to be his protector, “ in case the nobility 
might alter upon him.'' Balfour's bond makes a farther 
stipulation that he was to have leave to fire a shot or 
two towards them when they should first come to 
Edinburgh. This was, as explained in the deed “ to 
save his honer!'' 

Both well's papers were in the castle of Edinburgh, and 
when this bargain was made Balfour broke open a green 
desk in which they were, and found there, among others, 
the bond against Darnley which had been entered into 

1 Melville (Bannatyne Club), 179. 

2 Morton Papers, Bannatyne Misc. i. 18, § 16, “ Mary.” 


MARY STUART. 


among the conspirators. 1 They were now safe to de¬ 
nounce Both well. He had no longer the power even 
to expose them, and the castle of Edinburgh was won 
from him. He escaped with the Queen, and levied 
such force in her name as he could collect. Morton, 
Kirkcaldy, and others, also collected what force they 
could, and advanced on Borthwick castle, where Mary 
was. “Her majestie in mennis claithes, butit and 
spurit, 2 depairtit that samin neight from Borthwick 
to Dunbar.” 3 The opposing parties met in arms on the 
15th of June at Carberry Hill. The Queen had about 
2000 men, of whom “ the best part was commons.” 3 On 
the other side there were 1800 horsemen and 400 
footmen. “They were all gentlemen and weill in 
their gaire” 3 (well equipped). The Lords advanced 
“ keeping the heighest and strainthest 4 places.” Then 
a parley ensued. The Lords pledged themselves to 
give obedience to the Queen if she would quit Both- 
well. She did so, and they permitted Both well to ride 
unpursued off the field. She persuaded him “ to loup 
on horseback and ryd his way to Dunbar.” 3 Morton 

1 “ Sir James (Balfour) found in a green velvet desk, late the 
Earl of Bothwell’s, and saw and had in his hands the principal 
band of the conspirators of that murder (Darnley’s), and can best 
declare who were the authors and executors of the same ” (Sec¬ 
retary Walsingham’s letter, 3d February 1580, Cotton Lib. 
Calig. c. 6). 

2 In men’s clothes, booted and spurred. 

3 John Beaton’s letter, 17th June 1567 (Sloane Collection, 
3199, 152, British Museum). 

4 Highest and strongest. 


MARY STUART. 


* 5 * 

took the lead in these proceedings. He carried Mary 
to Edinburgh , 1 and confined her first in the Provost’s 
house, and afterwards at the Abbey. While there, “ scho 
cam yesterday to ane windo of hir chalmir that luikis 
on the Hiegate, and cryit furth on the peopil how scho 
was hadin in prison, and keept be hir awin subjects 
quha had betrayet hir. Scho cam to the said windo 
sundrie times in a miserable state, hir hair hingin about 
hir loggs” (ears ). 2 

John Beaton, from whose graphic description this 
account is taken, was one of Mary’s ordinary attend¬ 
ants, and saw what he describes. He adds : “ They 
convoyit her down the gait (street), my Lord of 
Atholl on the ta syd of her, and my Lord of Mortoun 
on the other, with three or four hundreth men. There 
marchit afore her the space of ane hundreth paisses 
(paces) four score of hagbuttairs. There is on the 
anseing (ensign) that was borne agains her the day sho 
was taiken, and was borne yesterday amang the said 
hagbuttairs, ane mikill deth (big dead) man besyde ane 
grein tree, be the quhilk man they signifie the king, and 
on the other syde of the said trie, ane young barne, 
(young child), quhom be (by whom) they signifie my 
Lord Prince, fra quhais mouth their is written in gryt 
letteris ‘ Juige and Revenge my Cause, 0 Lord.’” 

1 Morton’s warrant against Mary bears that, “ Her Ma tie will¬ 
ingly rode in the company of her said nobilitie and faithful sub¬ 
jects fra Carberry Hill to Edinburgh” (British Museum, Sloane 
Collection, 3199). 

2 John Beaton’s letter, 17th June 1567 (Sloane Collection, 
3199, 152, British Museum). 


* 5 2 


MARY STUART. 


Thus they conveyed her to Lochleven and shut her 
up there from June till May. In the end they com¬ 
pelled her by threats of death to sign a renunciation of 
the Crown, proclaimed her infant son King, and Murray 
Regent; and now at last the scheme of the conspiracy 
was fully accomplished. When this was done Murray 
returned from France, saw Mary in her prison, and, 
judging from the account of the interview given by 
himself to Throkmorton, used the most unmanly 
means to terrify her into continued submission. 
He left her for a whole night without hope of her 
life. 1 In the morning he pretended to relent, and 
worked upon her feelings to make her believe that 
she owed her life to his affection. She knew that she 
was under the lash of the terrible law of 1560 against 
the mass, and every day brought news from Edinburgh 
that her blood was demanded. The populace had 
been roused to the highest pitch of fury. “ The women 
were the worst,” though the men are said to have been 
mad enough. Pictures of the murder had been publicly 
exhibited—the young Prince on his knees praying 
vengeance for his father’s blood—ballads accusing the 
Queen poured from the press. The preachers de¬ 
nounced her fiercely from the pulpit; everything was 
done to lash the people into madness. Morton, the 
chief murderer, directed all. 

Bothwell lingered unmolested for nearly two 

1 “ In conclusion, the Earl of Murray left her that night in 
hope of nothing but God’s mercy” (Throkmorton to Queen Eliza¬ 
beth, 20th August 1567; Keith, old ed., 444 ; Tytler, vii. 183). 


MAR Y STUART. 


*53 


months in Scotland ; but the popular outcry at last 
compelled his quondam allies to send in earnest to 
take him. He then fled to Denmark, and was im¬ 
prisoned there for the rest of his life. 

The deed renouncing the Crown, which the successful 
conspirators forced the Queen to sign, is founded on 
a most audacious- recital. It runs in Marys name, and 
makes her say that “ after lang and intolerable pains 
and labours for government of the realm, she had not 
only been vexed in her spirit, body, and senses, but 
also at length was altogether so wearied thereof, 
that her ability and strength could not endure it,” 
and that “ nothing could be more happy and com¬ 
fortable to her in this earth” than to give up the 
Crown to her son, she “ of her own free will” re¬ 
nounced it, and appointed her “ dearest brother, James, 
Earl of Murray” to be Regent during the child’s 
minority, and until he should be seventeen years of 
age. 

Murray brought with him from the Continent 
assurances that their designs should meet with no 
resistance from France, and they were well assured of 
England. The first house which he entered in Scot¬ 
land was Archibald Douglas’s residence at Whitting- 
ham, 1 and the first persons with whom he was in con¬ 
sultation on his return were Archibald, Morton, and 
Lethington. 2 Both well alone was wanting of the party 

1 Tytler, vii. 181. 

2 The Bishop of Ross, who was intimately associated with 
Lord Herries, charged the murder home on Murray in these 


J 54 


MARY STUART. 


which met there to concert Darnley’s murder in the 
month before it was executed. 1 Murray assumed the 

remarkable words, which do not appear to have - ever been 
contradicted :— 

“ Is it unknown, think ye, Erie of Murray, what the Lord 
Herries said to your face openly, even at your owin table, a few 
days after the murder was committed ? Did he not charge you 
with the foreknowledge of the same murder 1 that you, riding 
in Fife, and coming with one of your most assured trusty 
servants, the said day wherein you departed from Edinburgh, 
said to him, among other talk— 4 This night, ere morning, the 
Lord Darnley shall lose his life ’ ” (Anderson, i. Preface, p. 4 ; 
Tytier’s Enquiry, ii. 91). 

John Hepburn, domestic servant of the Earl of Bothwell, 
immediately before his sentence was executed for being concerned 
in the atrocious murder of the late Lord Darnley, confessed, in 
the presence of all the people, by whom the same was heard, the 
innocence of the Queen his sovereign lady, protesting it before 
God and his angels, whom he called upon to witness what he 
said, and praying that, if he lied, it might be to the eternal ruin 
and perdition of his soul. ‘ I declare,’ said he, ‘ that Moray and 
Morton were the sole contrivers, movers, and counsellors of 
Bothwell in the commission of this murder; and that they have 
assisted in all the enterprises and conspiracies formed against 
Lord Darnley, and exhorted the Earl my master not to hesitate 
to execute boldly a deed so necessary for all the nobles of 
Scotland. I confess to have had knowledge of this, not only by 
word of mouth from my lord, “ with whom they were associated 
in it, and who assured me they would bear him out in it,” 
but by the letters and indentures signed by both of them, which 
he shewed me, and I have seen and read them myself, setting 
forth and describing the whole plot.’ These were his last 
words, on the truth of which he perilled the salvation of his 
soul” (Innocens de la Boyne d’Escosse, printed 1572; re¬ 
printed in Jebb’s Collections; Strickland, vol. vi. 51). 

1 Throkmorton wrote in special confidence to Cecil—“ Me- 
thinketh the Earl of Murray will run the course thet these men 


MARY STUART. 


r 55 


government and kept it for tke rest of liis life; still 
receiving what he calls his “ accustomed benevolence ” 
—that is, his pay—from England. 1 

do, and be partaker of their fortune. I hear no man speak more 
bitterly against the tragedy and the players therein, so little like 
he hath to horrible sins!” (12th August 1567, Throkmorton to 
Cecil—State Paper Office). 

1 There is a curious recital of Murray’s schemes down to 
Mary’s escape from Lochleven in an old manuscript in the British 
Museum, supposed to be written by Archibald Douglas, and 

“ Finis, quoth Maister James Balfour, 

Quha sold ye Castle in ane ill hour.” 

Extracts from it will be found in the Appendix No. XVII. 


MARY STUART 


J56 


CHAPTER XXIII. 

Five months after Mary was imprisoned, Parliament 
was convoked for the middle of December in her 
infant s name. During all this time they had brought 
no charge against the Queen. Her imprisonment was 
held out to the world as merely seclusion from Both- 
well. 1 They actually took two notaries to Lochleven 
after getting her demission signed, and went through 
the farce of protesting that she was not a prisoner ! 
In all their proclamations and Council minutes during 
these five months they uniformly described her as 
BothwelTs victim, not as his confederate. But Mary 
and her friends protested that her resignation of the 
Crown had been compelled by force and was invalid. 
A Parliamentary inquiry into the truth would have 
been inconvenient and dangerous, and when Parlia¬ 
ment approached, it became necessary that they should 

1 The warrant for her imprisonment in Lochleven, which 
was granted only by Morton, Athol, Glencairn, Graham, San¬ 
quhar, and Mar, hears, “ that after mature consultation, be com¬ 
mon advice, it is thocht convenient, concludit, and decernit, that 
her majestie’s person be sequestrat from all society of the said 
Erl Bothwell,” and “ ordains her to be convoyit to Lochleven, 
and to keep her Ma tie surely, and not to send any intelligence 
to any levand person except by direction of the lords under- 
scriband” (British Museum, Sloane Collection, 3199). 


MARY STUART. 


T 57 


find some new pretext against her. The General 
Assembly published an address demanding that the 
cause of the Queens detention should be explained, or 
that she should be set at liberty. The conspirators, 
now acting as a council of government, then resolved 
to charge her with the murder. But there was a great 
difficulty in the way. That double traitor Balfour 
still held the castle of Edinburgh, and kept his grip of 
the bond against Darnley. It was necessary to buy 
him a second time, but he stood out for an exorbitant 
price . 1 

1 Throkm orton to Cecil, 26th August 1567 (State Paper 
Office, Tytler, vii. 193 ; History of James VI. p. 18). 

Randolph wrote to Cecil—“ To name such as are yet here 
living, most notoriously known to have been chief consenters to 
the King’s death, I mind not. Only I will say that the universal 
bruit cometh upon three or four persons, which subscribed into a 
band, promising to concur and assist each other in doing the 
same. This band was kept in the castle, in a little coffer or 
desk covered with green, and after the apprehension of the 
Scottish Queen at Carberry Hill was taken out of the place 
where it lay by the Laird of Liddington, in presence of Mr. 
James Balfour, then Clerk of the Register and keeper of the keys 
where the registers are” (15th October 1570, M.S. State Paper 
Office ; Tytler, vii. 346). Randolph asseverates that Murray 
was not one of the subscribers. 

Sir Fras. Walsingham, before Morton’s trial, wrote (3d Feb. 
1580) that Balfour was to be produced as a witness against 
Morton. He says—“ Sir James Balford has been called into 
Scotland. . . . The said Sir James Balford found in a green 

velvet desk, late the Earl of Bothwell’s, and saw and had in his 
hands, the principal band of the conspirators in that murder, and 
can best declare and witness who were authors and executors of 
the same” (Cotton Library, Caligula 6, British Museum). 


MARY STUART. 


158 


A very critical date also approached for the holders 
of the Crown lands. On the 8th of December Mary 
Stuart would complete her twenty-fifth year. Her 
power to revoke their grants would expire by law on 
that day. She conceived that the Parliamentary sanc¬ 
tion which they had obtained removed only the statu¬ 
tory nullity which attached to Crown grants made 
without consent of Parliament, 1 and that she still had 
her private right of revocation on the ground of mino¬ 
rity. It appears accordingly that before that date she 
executed a secret revocation at Lochleven. 2 The royal 
power to revoke grants made in minority was then 
considered very large. It had been exercised in the 
most sweeping manner by Marys predecessors, and 
was so exercised by her successors. The holders of 
these lands could not long be kept ignorant of this 
alarming act of their prisoner. Her friends, indeed, 
would be likely to boast of it as soon as it was success¬ 
fully executed ; and uneasy consciences would suggest 

1 See ante, p. 34. 

2 Statement of her Commissioners (Good. ii. 214 and 211). 
Scrope and Knollys wrote of Mary, on her first reaching 
England, to Elizabeth, 29th May 1568:—“She fell into dis¬ 
courses that the cause of the warre and disobedient treason of the 
cheefe of these hyr subjects was thereby to keep that which she 
had so lyberally gyven to them, by violence ; since, throe hyr 
revocation thereof within full age, they cowld not injoye the same 
by lawe. And withall she affyrmed that both Lyddington and 
the Lord Morton were assenting to the murder of her husband, 
as it could well be proved, althoe nowe they would seme to 
persequute the same” (Goodall, ii. 71). 


MAR Y STUART. 


J 59 


doubts whether after all they had finally secured their 
ill-got possessions. To go before Parliament in these 
circumstances, resting alone on Mary's compulsory 
resignation of the Crown, would be a step of question¬ 
able prudence. So they submitted to Balfour's terms. 
Murray conveyed to him the Priory of Pittenweern (a 
slice from the lands of his earldom), paid him £5000, 
gave Jiim a remission for the King's murder, and a pen¬ 
sion to his son. Balfour then gave up the castle, and 
we know from a letter of one of the English ministers 
that Lethington burnt the bond for the King's murder. 
That letter from Drury to Cecil is dated 28 th No¬ 
vember. "The writings," he says, "which did com¬ 
prehend the names and consents of the chief for the 
murdering of the King is turned into ashes." 1 And 
within a week after the date of that letter the Eegent 
Murray and his confederates joined in a minute of 
Council 2 agreeing to charge Maiy with the murder of 
her husband, and with having preconcerted with Botli- 
well her being seized and carried to Dunbar. This 
was on 4 th December, four days before Mary's twenty- 
fifth birthday, and within eleven of the meeting of 
Parliament. That minute bears the signatures of 
Murray first, next Morton, and a little below them Sir 
James Balfour and Maitland of Lethington. 

'Drury to Cecil, 28th November 1567 (Tytler, vil 204; 
Qua'rterly , lxvii 334). Bee also Randolph to Cecil, 15 th October 
1570, quoted in Tytler, vil 346 (State Papers, voL xix. 61). 

* 4th December 1567. This minute is printed in full by 
Goodall, ii 62. 


i6o 


MARY STUART. 


But before this was accomplished, they had issued 
and executed their summons of treason against Both¬ 
well, in which they had charged him with the murder, 
with no imputation against the Queen, and with 
treason, by seizing and forcing 1 the Queen; and there 
was not time to alter it before the meeting of Parlia¬ 
ment, for Bothwell, being then out of Scotland, had 
by law to be summoned on forty days’ notice. His 
estates, when forfeited, were to be divided among 
them; and therefore they did not omit any of the 
legal forms of forfeiture. 2 Thus it has come that 
there are two incongruous Acts in that Parliament— 
one forfeiting Bothwell for treasonable violence to the 
Queen, and another asserting that “ all was done in her 
ain defaultone pronouncing her a murderess without 
permitting her to be heard, another describing her as 
the “ Prince’s dearest mother.” This was probably 
never known to Mary, who was in prison at the time ; 
and it seems hitherto to have escaped notice. 

Lethington long afterwards acknowledged that 

1 The violenceTised by Bothwell to the Queen is characterised 
in the summons as “ vis aut metus qui cadit in constantem 
virum,”—such force and fear as would shake a man of fir mn ess 
and resolution. It is the law phrase for such violence as would 
annul a deed. 

2 There is a curious illustration of their anxiety on this point. 
It was then considered necessary that, to secure the lands, the 
decree of forfeiture should be proclaimed at the place where the 
Sovereign’s court was held for the time. And to make all sure, 
they caused Bothwell’s forfeiture to he proclaimed, not only 
where the infant King was, but also at Lochleven, where they 
kept the deposed Queen iu custody. 


MARY STUART. 


161 


after they put the Queen into Lochleven the country 
did not join them as they hoped—“ never ane came 
more to us than we were at Carberry Hill”—he de¬ 
clared they were at their wits’ end, and contrived 
the setting up of the young Prince as King “just as a 
fetch to get them out of the scrape,” 1 without any 
confidence that it was to last. He said it was “ as if 
you were in a boat on fire—you would loup 2 into the 
sea, and then when you were like to drown, you would 
be glad to get back into the boat.” 

1 Dalzell’s Illustrations of Scottish History , p. 159. 2 Leap. 


M 


162 


MARY STUART. 


CHAPTEK XXIV. 

When they resolved to charge the Queen with the 
murder, Morton brought forward a parcel of papers, 
stating that Bothwell kept them in a silver casket in 
the Castle of Edinburgh; that Balfour had sent it to 
Bothwell after Mary’s surrender at Carberry Hill ; 
and "that he (Morton) had intercepted it in the 
hands of a servant, Dalgleish, who was since dead. 1 

1 “ Quhilk box and haill pecis within the samyn wer takin 
and fund with umquhile (the deceased) George Dalgleische, 
servand to the said Erll Bothvile, upon the 20 th day of June ye 
yeir of God 1567 yeirs.” (The Regent Murray’s receipt to 
Morton for the box and letters, 16th September 1568, printed 
by Goodall, ii. 90; and Morton’s receipt for them in the same 
words, 22d January 1570-1—Goodall, ii. 91). 

It is remarkable that within a week after the 20th of June, 
when these letters are represented as having been seized, there 
is a minute in the records of the Privy Council which proves that 
at that time they were regarded not as evidence against the 
Queen, but as proving that she was Bothwell’s victim. This 
minute is inedited, and is in these terms:—“Edinburgh, 26 
June 1567.—The Lords has, by evident proof as weill of witness 
as writings made manifest unto them that James Erl Bothwell 
was the principal deviser of the murder, and at the actual doing 
thereof himself; whairthrow the said Lords has pursued him, 
and yet intends to pursue him, and all his complices, adherents, 
and partakers, with all extremitie for the same ; as also for 
the reversing of our Sovereyn’s person and maist unlawful joining 
of himself with her Majesty in pretendit marriage, against the 


MARY STUART. 


163 


This was represented to have happened after Balfour 
had betrayed Bothwell, and knew him to be ruined. 1 
From what we have seen of Balfour we may judge 
whether, if he had got hold of papers that really 
proved the Queen guilty of the murder, he would have 
parted with them so simply as Morton said. These 
papers were afterwards produced by Murray and 
Morton before Queen Elizabeth. Mary, then Eliza¬ 
beth’s prisoner, claimed to see them and to have copies 
of them, but this was not allowed. 

“ They [her commissioners] desirit the writings 
producit be hir unobedient subjectis, or at the leist the 
copies thairof, to be deliverit unto thame, that thair 
Maistres might fullie answer thairto, as was desyrit. 

“ And the Quenes Majestie of Ingland tuik to be 
advysit thairwith.” 2 She afterwards said she would 
not refuse the doubles , 3 if Mary would sign a paper 
acknowledging Elizabeths jurisdiction over her! 
which she knew Mary was certain to refuse, as she 

law of God and the law of the realme ” (Original Minutes of 
Privy Council). Their Council minutes of 9th and 21st July 
bear “ that the said Erl continuand in his mischief and wickedness, 
first treasonably reveist hir Majestie’s maist nobill person, and 
then constraint her, being in his bondage and thraldom, to 
contract sic a pretendit and unlawful marriage with him, &c. 

* * * and the danger to the son, seeing the murderer of his 

father aspirit to that roume” (place). 

1 Hume says that according to Morton’s account, Balfour 
gave notice to Morton of his having sent the casket to Bothwell 
in order that it might be intercepted. This makes the story 
still more improbable. 

* Goodall, ii. 297 ; 7th Jan. 1568. 


8 Goodall, ii. 310. 


164 


MARY STUART. 


had always done. Indeed, when Elizabeth’s com¬ 
mission opened, the first step taken by Mary’s 
commissioners had been to protest solemnly ‘ that the 
Queen’s Majestie thair Sovereigne should nawayis 
recognize herself to be subject to ony judge on eird 
[earth], in respect she is ane fre Princes, having 
imperial crowne given her of God, and acknowledges 
no uther superior.” 1 And Elizabeth’s commissioners 
had protested, in reply, that Elizabeth had jurisdiction 
as a right “ incident to the crowne of England, which 
the Quene’s Majestie and all her noble progenitors, 
kingis of this realme, have claymed and enjoyed as 
superiors over the realm of Scotland.” 2 It was a vain 
attempt to revive the old claim of the Edwards, which 
after many bloody wars had been slain and buried by 
the Bruce at Bannockburn; and Mary could not have 
yielded it without betraying her country. Elizabeth 
knew this well. And the condition without which 
she would not let Mary see even copies of these 
papers, shows how hard she was put to it to evade the 
demand that they should be exhibited. 

Morton subsequently got the original writings back 
into his own hands, 3 and they all, with perhaps one 
exception, ultimately disappeared. These papers are 
in truth the only tangible evidence against the Queen, 
and they came from a most suspicious source. Their 
disappearance is also a suspicious circumstance; and 
we approach their examination under the great disad- 

1 Protestation, 7th Oct. 1568, Goodall, ii. 124. 2 Ibid. 

3 22d Jan. 1570-1, Goodall, ii. 91. 


MARY STUART. 


165 

vantage of being deprived of the originals. They 
have always been challenged as tainted with forgery ; x 
and many of the checks against forgery depend on 
examination of the original writings. 

The first of these papers was produced as a pro¬ 
mise of marriage by Mary to Bothwell, given before 
the death of her husband. 2 It has no date, and 
the pretext that it was granted before Darnley s death 
is thoroughly disproved by the circumstance that it 
contains the words “ since God has taken my late hus¬ 
band Henry Stuart called Darnley/' It is amazing 
that the document should have been put forward with 
a statement which its own words so effectually dis¬ 
prove. The name too which this paper gives to her 
late husband is suspicious. Darnley was the title which 
he had before she made him first a duke and then 

1 The Bishop of Boss wrote to Queen Elizabeth in Mary’s 

defence, 6th December 1568. He said, as to the letters, that his 
mistress challenged them as forgeries, and that “ there are sundry 
who can counterfeit her handwriting who have been brought up 
in her company, of whom there are some assisting them.” * * 

This was Lethington’s wife, who was educated in France along 
with Mary, and was taught writing by the same master. He 
proceeds—“ And it may be well presumed that they who have 
put hands to their prince, imprisoned her person, and committed 
such heinous crimes, if a counterfeit letter be sufficient to serve 
them, maintain their cause, and conquest to them a kingdom, or 
at least the supreme government and authority thereof for a 
long space, will not leave the same unforged.” (Goodall, ii. 
380, 389). 

2 “ Upon credible grounds, supposed to have been maid and 
written be hir before the death of hir husband ” (Buchanan’s 
Detection —Goodall, ii. 54). 


i66 


MARY STUART. 


king. He was called Darnley only by those who 
wished to show disrespect, or to question her right to 
give him the title of king. It touched her prerogative, 
which it had cost her a rebellion to maintain. 1 There¬ 
fore if she ever wrote this paper, it must have been 
under constraint, and probably while she was Both- 
welTs prisoner at Dunbar. 2 

Morton produced another contract of marriage, pro¬ 
fessing to be dated at Seaton on the 5th of April;—but 
the date is clearly falsified, for the contract sets forth 
that “ a process of divorce has been intented” between 
Bothwell and Dame Jane Gordon his first wife, and it 
repeats a second time that that process has been “ already 
begun.” But we know for certain that that process 

1 Even in her will, when she left him such a touching remem¬ 
brance of her affection, she was careful to assert his title as king. 
See ante , p. 89. 

2 The author has found at the British Museum (Cotton 
Library) a document which may be the original of this paper. It 
is in a lawyer’s handwriting, and has attached to it a subscription 
resembling Mary’s. There is a considerable blank between the 
writing and the signature, giving the impression that either the 
signature was there before the writing was inserted, or a blank 
left as for a testing clause in the Scotch form. There are no 
witnesses to it, and therefore the testing clause could not be 
filled up. On careful comparison with her ordinary subscription, 
the name looks much liker an imitation than a genuine signature. 
This MS. is in Caligula, 0. I. 121, p. 206. It is pasted on the 
back of a “ Reply and true declaration by the Queene of Scots’ 
Commissioners, 16th October 1568,” which bears the original 
signatures of the Bishop of Ross and other Commissioners—an 
original document, which passed through Cecil’s hands. 


MARY STUART 


167 


was not begun till after Mary was Bothwells prisoner. 1 
In fact, these writings, if otherwise genuine, just indi¬ 
cate the successive stages of coercion used at Dunbar 
by Bothwell against the Queen. The first, of a few 
lines without date or witness; the second, a long formal 
deed signed before two witnesses—George Earl of 
Huntly, who we know was one of the party at Dunbar, 
and Thomas Hepburn, parson of Aldhamstocks, Both- 
well’s parish at Dunbar, a worthy whom, as soon as 
the marriage was solemnised, Bothwell made a Privy 
Councillor.—But what would be the use of falsifying 
the date of this contract ? Obviously to make it 
appear that she had agreed to marry Bothwell before 
he carried her off, and that instead of her being intimi¬ 
dated or influenced by the bond of Morton and his 
confederates to Bothwell for the marriage, they might 
be able to pretend that they were led to sign that bond 
by the knowledge that she had previously signed a 
contract of marriage. 

Morton also produced a third contract of marriage, 
still more formal, dated the 14th of May, the day be¬ 
fore the marriage was solemnised. 

What was the use of so many contracts of mar- 

1 “ The said Erie plainlie enterprisit to ravish her person and 
leid hir to Dunbar castell, haldin her their as captive a certaine 
space during quhilk he caused divorce be led betwixt him and his 
lawful wife” (Answer of James Erie of Murray, Regent, and re¬ 
manent Commissioners—Goodall, ii. 144). The Duke of Nor¬ 
folk’s report to Elizabeth states positively that the divorce was not 
begun before the 1st of May, and yet with speed ended within 
eight days (Goodall, ii. 141). 


i68 


MARY STUART. 


riage, each more formal than its predecessor, unless 
Bothwell feared that the Queen might slip through 
his fingers ? 

There were some letters produced by Morton, 
which if they truly were written by Mary to Bothwell, 
would be conclusive of her guilt. And Mr. Froude, 
who is one of the most painstaking and able writers of 
history at present alive, has only last year published a 
most interesting history of those times, in which he 
assumes the authenticity of these letters, and actually 
interweaves them with his narrative as historical docu¬ 
ments. 

When Mary heard of them, she specially instructed 
her commissioners in the following remarkable words : 
“ Gif ony sic writings be, they are false and feigned, 
forged and invented by themselves, and ye shall desire 
the principals to be produced, and that I myself may 
have inspection thereof and make answer thereto.” 1 
But neither she nor her commissioners were allowed to 
see them. 

While she was a prisoner in England, Elizabeth 
secretly pressed the Begent Murray to bring forward 
before her judges the charge of murder. He was very 
shy about it. 2 He showed even greater timidity about 
the production of the letters; and before he wcjuld 
give an answer to Elizabeth's entreaties, he actually 

1 Goodall, ii. 342. 

2 Elizabeth threatened to invest the Duke of Chatelherault 
with the Regency if Murray refused to pursue the accusation 
(Mignet, ii. 40 ; Tytler, vi. 67). 


MARY STUART. 


169 


tried to make a bargain as to tbe judgment to be given. 
We have bis very words : l “ It may be that sic letteris 
as we haif of the Queene our Soveraine Lordis moder, 
that sufficiently in our opinioun preivis her consenting 
to the murthure of the king hir lauchful husband, sal 
be callit in doubt be the juges to be constitute for 
examination and trial of the caus, quhether thay may 
stand or fall; pruif or not. Thairfor sen our servand 
Mr. Jhone Wode hes the copies of the samin letteris 
translated in our language, we wald ernestlie desyre 
that the saidis copies may be considerit be the juges 
that sail haif the examinatioun and commissioun of the 
matter, that they may resolve us this far, in cais the 
principal agree with the copie , that then we pruif the 
caus indeed: For quhen we haif manifestit and 
schawin all, and zit sail haif na assurance that it we 
send sail satisfie for probatioun, for quhat purpois sail 
we ather accuse, or tak care how to pruif, quhen we are 
not assurit quhat to pruif, or when we have preivit, 
quhat sail succeed.” Is that a proposal which could be 
made by honest men, who believed that they had 
honest writings to show, and honest judges to inspect 
them ? Clearly Morton and Murray wished the judges 
to do exactly what Mr. Froude has done—assume that 
the writings were authentic, and on that assumption 
hold the cause “ proved indeed.” 

These letters, in truth, were as gross and clumsy 
fabrications as ever were put forward. This has been 
well proved by Whitaker, Goodall, and the elder 
1 Goodall, ii. 75. 


MARY STUART. 


170 

Tytler, whose criticisms upon tliem have never met 
with any sufficient answer , 1 and therefore only a few 
points may be noticed which these able writers have 
not touched, but which of themselves would be deci¬ 
sive. 

One of the letters is described by Elizabeth's com¬ 
missioners as “ a horrible and long letter, of her own 
hand as they say .” 2 And certainly it is long, and 
contains very horrible things. We have now seven 
volumes, published by Count Labanoff, of Mary's real 
correspondence, and any one who has looked into that 
correspondence, and made himself acquainted with its 
spirit and character, must acknowledge that it is im¬ 
bued everywhere with the noblest feeling, the finest 
language, the purest thought ; pity and mercy in 
almost .every page. But there are passages in the 
letters produced by Morton which are loathsome and 
horrible to the last degree, such as the vilest of her sex 
would hardly utter or write. The long letter referred 
to is exhibited as a love letter by her to Bothwell, and 
it occupies fourteen quarto pages of print ! 3 It is a 
very strange document. Four-fifths of it consist of a 
cool and business-like recital of circumstances such 
as it would have been very proper for Mary to state 
in a memorial for the information of her Privy 
Council or confidential advisers, and that was probably 

1 Dr. Johnson said, on considering them, “ that the silver 
casket letters were spurious, and would never again be brought 
forward as historic evidences.” 

2 Goodall, ii. 142. 3 Anderson’s Collections, ii. 131. 


MARY STUART. 


171 

the true character of the document originally. It is 
actually spoken of in the body of the paper as “ the 
memorial.”—Her relation with Darnley had ceased to 
be a mere domestic question. It had become an affair 
of state, which had engaged the deliberations of the 
Privy Council, and they had three months before 
transmitted to the Queen-Mother of France an official 
statement on the subject. It was therefore necessary 
that the reconciliation should be fully explained to 
them.—But while this is the general character of the 
paper, there are at the commencement, towards the 
middle, and at the end, passages of the most extrava¬ 
gant love-making, and palpable suggestions of murder.; 
passages so different in style, language, and thought 
from the rest of the paper, that one cannot understand 
how they could have proceeded from the same mind, 
or how the hot and the cold should have been intended 
for one person. It seems as if the blanks at the begin¬ 
ning and end had been filled up with forged passages, 
and false sheets inserted at the middle and to gloss 
over any difference in the handwriting or appearance 
of the interpolations, she, the most accomplished lady 
of her time, is made at the end of the paper to say— 
“ Excusez mon ignorance d escrire” and then with 
apologies for scantiness of paper, “ excusez la briefuete 

1 This was the view taken of these papers by the Lords and 
Bishops who supported Mary’s cause while she was in England, 
some of whom had seen the papers in Parliament. “ The samin 
is devysit be thameselfis in sum principal and suhstantious clauses ” 
(Instructions by the Earls, Lords, and Bishops, 12th Sept. 1568, 
printed in Goodall, ii. 361). 


172 


MARY STUART 


des characteres,” apparently intended by the falsifiers to 
account for some suspicious appearances of cramming in 
the manuscript; “ that thing that is scriblit,” they have 
made it in Scotch. Hence, no doubt, the care taken 
that Mary and her friends should never see the originals. 

To take a sample passage—very far from the worst: 
one of the forged passages represents Mary, a married 
woman, writing to Bothwell, a married man, and sug¬ 
gesting contrivances by which they were to be freed 
and united. The passage is—“ We are coupled wi twa 
false races, the devil sinder us ”—that is, rid Mary of her 
husband, and divorce Bothwell from his wife (for that 
is the scheme which was imputed to her),—“ and God 
knit us together for ever”—that is, Mary and Both¬ 
well—“for the maist faithful couple that ever he 
united. This is my faith, and I will die in it.” 1 And 
this, we are to believe, was written by Mary Stuart. 
The process was to be to divorce Bothwell from his 
wife, which, in the eye of a Catholic, could be done 
only through the action of the church. The thought 
which underlies the phrase “ devil sinder us,” in its 
application to Bothwell, consequently identifies the 
Bomish Church with the congregation of Satan, a con¬ 
ception which could never have entered the mind of a 
Catholic. Mary could not have written it without 
horror. It is obviously the thought of an ultra-Pro¬ 
testant—such a Protestant as Morton was. 

Mary's memorial consisted of two parts, and each 
part closed, as such memorials sometimes do, with an 
1 This is from Murray’s Scotch translation. 


MARY STUART. 


i 73 


abstract of its contents. Did anybody ever hear of a 
love-letter of that kind ? And the forgeries are so 
clumsy, and the interpolation so manifest, that the 
forged passages are not included in the abstracts, and 
one of the abstracts contains a head which has no cor¬ 
responding place in the body of the paper, a portion 
being thus indicated which seems to have been taken 
out and its place occupied by forged passages. The 
second abstract runs, “ Remember you of the Earl of 
Argyle” (that passage remains in the body of the 
paper), “of the Earl of Bothwell” (and that is the 
missing passage), “ of the lodging in Edinburgh” (and 
that passage remains). And why was the passage as to 
the Earl of Bothwell taken out ? Obviously because 
it would have made it impossible to represent the 
paper as a letter addressed to Bothwell; and, as is very 
common with falsifiers, they overlooked the circum¬ 
stance that BothwelTs name, as it remains in the 
abstract, is just as conclusive as the missing passage 
could have been that the paper, whatever its history, 
could not have been addressed to Bothwell, for what 
would have been the use of telling Bothwell to 
remember himself? It has been suggested indeed 
that these abstracts are memoranda by Mary of the 
subjects upon which she intended to write; but how 
ridiculous is it to suppose that in writing a love-letter 
of such inordinate length to a man with whom she is 
charged with being madly in love, she required to put 
down a note on paper, that she was to remember the 
person she was writing to ! 


i 74 


MARY STUART. 


This letter or memorial, as produced by the con¬ 
federates, was wholly in French, which was the 
language chiefly used by Mary. Goodall and the 
elder Tytler proved, by a critical examination of 
various parts of it, that the French was not the 
original, but a translation; that it had been translated 
from Buchanan’s Latin; and that Buchanan’s Latin 
was itself a translation from Murray’s Scotch version. 

The proof of this was so overwhelming in regard 
to the bulk of the letter, that Robertson and Hume, 
who took the opposite side, did not attempt to confute 
it. They took refuge in the supposition that there 
may have been some fourth version in French from 
which the Scotch was translated! and that that lost 
version was the true one which the Queen wrote. On 
this remote conjecture, which Mr. Froude follows, they 
founded their case against her. 

But they also referred to other passages in the letter 
(and they were right) in which the idioms and con¬ 
struction are so purely French, and the Scotch version 
so inferior, as to make it almost equally certain that 
the French of these is the original, and the Scotch a 
translation. 

The controversy was so hot, and became so per¬ 
sonal, that both parties fought for victory : one main¬ 
taining that the paper was wholly spurious, the other 
that it was wholly genuine. But the natural deduc¬ 
tion from the facts on which they seemed at last to 
agree is, as the author thinks, that the paper was 
interpolated. And it was in the innocent passages 


MARY STUART. 


i 75 


that Hume and Robertson found their examples, while 
GoodalTs, proving it spurious, were taken from those 
which infer guilt. 

It would be tedious to go far into these contro¬ 
versies. One amusing instance is given by Goodall. 
The Scotch version makes the Queen say, “ I am irkit 
(weaty) and going to sleep.” Buchanan, who was 
getting old, had mistaken the two first letters of irkit, 
and read it “ nakit;” so he solemnly translates “ Ego 
nudata sum;” and the French translator, following 
suit and improving on it, makes it “ toute nue” (stark 
naked)—a strange condition for her Majesty while 
writing so long a letter in a northern January! 

Here is an example which appears to have escaped 
even Goodall. The Scotch version makes the Queen 
speak of the Gordon 1 family as a “ false race.” 
Buchanan translated it ‘‘gens ilia perfida,” and the 
Frenchman expanded it into “ nation infidele ! ”—The 
paper, apologising for its own length, spoke of it as 
“ so lang;” the Frenchman mistook it for length of time, 
and made it “par ce quil dure tant!”—On the same 
subject it said, “I shall end my lybil ” 2 —an old 
Scotch word still in use, derived from and having 
the same meaning as the Latin libellus, or little 

1 Jean Gordon, Botliwell’s wife, was the person pointed to by 
this interpolation. 

2 The word seems to have puzzled the commentators of last 
century from the last letter being printed b. They guessed that 
it should have been “ bill,” for a note or letter. 


176 


MARY STUART. 


book. 1 2 Buchanan unluckily mistook the first letter 
for a b, and translated it “mea biblia the French¬ 
man followed, “ ma bible! 33 2 

To convey the idea that she had a disgust for 
Darnley’s person, she was made to speak of the foul¬ 
ness of his breath—so foul that she could come no 
nearer than a chair at the bed-foot, he being at the 
other end of the bed—Buchanan translated it of 
Darnley's feet instead of the bed's, and rolled out in 
majestic Latin, “sed in cathedra sedeo ad pedes ejus 
cum ipse in remotissima lecti parte sit," which is not 
very remote from nonsense; but the French assistant 
could do no more than follow,—“ Mais je m’assieds en 
une chaire 4 ses pieds, luy estant en la partie du lict 
plus esloignee.” 

The high tone of Mary's mind may be inferred 
from her writings. We here give a translation of two 
stanzas from 

1 The English word libel has the same root, but is by usage 
limited to defamatory writings. 

2 The passage given ante on p. 172, from Murray’s Scotch 
version, runs thus in the French :— 

“Nous sommes conjoints avec deux especes d’hommes in- 
fideles: le diable nous vueille separer, et que Dieu nous con- 
joingne & jamais, a ce que soyons deux personnes tres fideles, si 
jamais autre ont este conjointes ensemble—voila ma foy, et veux 
mourir en icelle.” 

Here the spirit and terseness of the Scotch are poorly 
rendered. There seems little doubt the original of it was drafted 
in Scotch and manufactured into French, for engrafting on Mary’s 
French memorial. 


MARY STUART. 


177 


HER WAIL FOR THE DEAD. 

“ All that was pleasant to my eyes 
Now gives me pain; 

The brightest day is dark to me; 

I have no heed 

For the most exquisite delights. 

“ If I look up to Heaven, 

I see his gentle eyes 
Gazing on me from the clouds ; 

If I look on the waters 
I see him as in his grave.” 

Contrast with these, or any of her undoubted writ¬ 
ings, the coarseness of thought and language imputed 
to her by the forgers, in their interpolations :— 

“ Cursed might this pockish man be that causes 
me so much pain.” “He has almost slain me with his 
breath.” “ The devil sunder us.” “ I am not well at 
ease, and yet very glad to write to you while the rest 
are sleeping, since I cannot sleep as they do, and as I 
would desire ; that is, in your arms, my dear love.” 

How rank it is ! 


N 


i 7 8 


MARY STUART. 


CHAPTER XXV. 

Along with the other forged papers Morton produced 
against the Queen a number of French sonnets, which 
he said she had written to Bothwell, and he had 
intercepted in the casket. There were two eminent 
Frenchmen alive at that time—Brantome the historian, 
and Ronsard the poet—who were intimately ac¬ 
quainted with and admired Mary’s compositions. 
They both pronounced these sonnets spurious; and 
Brantome writes of them that they are too coarse in 
conception, and too rude in execution, to have pro¬ 
ceeded from her. 1 

Morton further produced several French letters by 
Mary, which he said he had found in Bothwell’s casket, 
and in three of these the author detects no marks of 
forgery. One of them is that beautiful letter which has 
already been quoted as written by her to Darnley, which 

1 The following specimen of another true sonnet by Mary is 
from a translation published by Miss Strickland (vi. 231):— 

SONET PAR LA ROYNE D’eSCOSSE. 

Tire de Lieu 'par le sang rtest appaise . 

The wrath of God the blood will not appease 
Of bulls and goats upon his altar shed, 

Nor clouds of fragrant incense upward spread : 

He joyeth not in sacrifice like these. 


MARY STUART. 


J 79 


the internal evidence shows that it was ; x but the villain 
Morton produced it as a letter by her to Bothwell, 
and so converted all her expressions of wifely affection 
into loathsome longings for a paramour. Every 
incident which appears in that letter precisely agrees 
with facts which we know in regard to Mary and her 
husband; but not one incident or allusion which it 
contains is suitable to Bothwell. There is one phrase 
in it which is almost conclusive, where, speaking of 
the relation between her and the person to whom it is 
addressed, she refers to herself as she “ to whom alone 
you rightfully belong,” “ and who alone has won you 
loyally;” and again, she refers in it to “ all the evils 
which you have caused to me,” which is very descrip¬ 
tive of Darnley, but had not been true (quite the 
reverse) of Bothwell up to the time when he made her 
his prisoner ; and after that time none of the incidents 
to which the letter refers could have occurred. 

When the conspirators published this letter they 
put out with it, and sometimes instead of it, what they 
called a " translation into our language.” Our readers 

Those, Lord, who would Thee in their offerings please, 

Must come in faith, by Hope immortal led, 

With charity to man, and duteous tread 
Thy paths, unmurmuring at thine high decrees. 

This the oblation that is sweet to Thee : 

A spirit tuned to prayer and thoughts divine 
Meek and devout, in body chastely pure ;— 

O Thou All-powerful ! grant such grace to me 
That all these virtues in my heart may shine, 

And to Thy glory evermore endure. 

1 Ante, p. 105. 


MARY STUART. 


180 

may remember that beautiful passage in the letter in 
which Mary spoke of her loneliness when separated 
from her husband, like a bird away from its cage, or a 
turtle-dove that has lost its mate. The conspirators 
circulated everywhere as the translation of that passage, 
representing it always as a letter by Mary to Both well: 
“ Mak gude watch gif the burd eschaipe out of the 
cagethus converting Mary’s poetical and affectionate 
thought into an instruction to Bothwell to watch 
Darnley in case he should escape. The intention 
of this manifest falsification (and it exists also in 
Buchanan’s Latin translation) is to make the letter, 
which avowedly has reference to the warning given to 
Darnley by the Lord Robert Stewart, 1 appear to have 
been intended for Bothwell, and to connect the Queen 
with a plan to intercept Darnley in case that warning 
should have led him to seek safety in flight. 2 

Another of the letters produced by Morton tells 
its story on its face. One of Mary’s ladies, who, her 
accusers say, was Margaret Carwood, the same who 
was married on the night before the murder, had let 
her tongue loose upon Darnley—for which perhaps 

1 Goodall, ii. 142 and ii. 248, Feb. 8. 

2 The passage in the original French is—“ Comme l’oyseau 
eschappe de la cage, ou la tourtre qui est sans compagne, ainsi je 
demeureray seule, pour pleurer vostre absence, quelque brieve 
qu’elle puisse estre.” Buchanan’s Latin translation of it is 
nearly as dishonest as the Scotch, and conveys a similar false 
suggestion : “ Si avis evaserit e cavea, aut sine compare, velut 
turtur, ego remanebo sola ut lamenter absentiam tuam 
quamlibet brevem.” The letter, in French, Latin, and Scotch, is 
published by Goodall, ii. 35. 


MARY STUART. 


1 81 

he had given sufficient cause—and he, silly lad as he 
was, had run with his tale to the Queen, and obviously 
huffed and pouted about it. Can that apply to Both- 
well? Imagine that reckless iron man running like 
a big baby to tell mamma that Margaret had been 
saucy! It is a cap that fits Darnley, but assuredly 
not Bothwell. And then she writes this coaxing letter 
to console the boy, suggesting that she couldn't have 
hindered it without speaking of it. She says, “ when 
she shall be married, I pray you to give me another, 
or I shall take one whose ways shall please you." She 
pawkily adds—and one can see that she felt a touch 
of the ludicrous, we may almost conceive a twinkle 
in her eye as she wrote it—“ But as for their tongues, 
or faithfulness toward you, I will not answer." The 
whole tone of the letter shows that it is written to a 
petted youth ; and she goes on to talk of her volun¬ 
tary subjection, which was just the salve to apply to 
poor Darnley's sore, but surely not the tone she would 
have used to the bold strong man who domineered 
over her so harshly from the hour he seized her. 

Another of the letters which Morton produced 
against Mary at Westminster was quietly put aside 
by the English ministers without remark. Murray's 
instructions 1 bear that eight letters were produced 
to them, and eight were printed and circulated by 
him ; but Elizabeth's commissioners recorded the pro¬ 
duction of only seven . 2 The eighth letter deserves 


Goodall, p. 87. 


2 Goodall, p. 235. 


182 


MARY STUART. 


special consideration. Robertson says 1 —“ The eighth 
letter was never translated into French. It contains 
much refined mysticism about devices, a folly of that age 
of which Mary was very fond, as appears from several 
other circumstances, particularly from a letter contain¬ 
ing impresas by Drummond of Hawtliornden. If 
Mary’s adversaries forged her letters, they were cer¬ 
tainly employed very idly when they produced this.” 
Robertson had not the key which we now have to this 
letter. He was ignorant of the secret marriage 
between Mary and Darnley. But Randolph’s letter, 
which is for the first time published in this volume , 2 
proves that it was well known to Elizabeth and her 
ministers. And whenever they read the letter they 
must have seen, by the allusions which it makes 
to that secret marriage (unintelligible though these 
have been to the world for the greater part of 
three centuries), that it was a letter by Mary to 
Darnley, not to Bothwell, and written during the 
interval between the private and the public marriage, 
when Darnley was, as they well knew, in constant 
danger of being assassinated . 3 They might well put 
it aside. A few extracts from it will show its real 
character. 

“ If the weariness of your absence, added to your 
forgetfulness, and the fear of danger so threatened by 
all to your much-loved person, may give me consola¬ 
tion, I leave to you to judge.” But, “ for all that, I 

1 Dissertation, p. 230. 2 Appendix No. VI. 

3 Ante, p. 38. 


MARY STUART. 


i8 3 

will never accuse you, neither of your little remem¬ 
brance nor of your little caution , 1 and least of all of 
your promises broken , 2 or of the coldness of your 
writing, since I am always so far made yours that that 
which pleases you is acceptable to me.” “Ye only 
uphold of my life, for whom alone I will preserve the 
same, and without whom I desire nothing but sudden 
death.” “My dread to displease you, my tears for 
your absence, the sorrow that I cannot be in outward 
effect yours, as I am without feignedness of heart and 
spirit.” “ I shall take pains to be bestowed worthily 
under your guidance—my only wealth. Eeceive, 
therefore, in as good part the same, as I have received 
your marriage with extreme joy, which shall not part 
forth of my bosom until that marriage of our bodies 
be made in public as sign of all that I either hope or 
desire of bliss in this world.” “ She that will be 
for ever unto you humble and obedient laivful wife, 
that for ever dedicates unto you her heart, her body, 
unchanging, as unto him that I have made possessor 
of the heart, of which you may hold you assured that 
unto the death shall nowise be changed; for evil nor 
good shall never make me go from it.” 

1 Cair, in the original. 

2 Randolph wrote of Darnley at this period—“ To all honest 
men he is intolerable, and almost forgetful of his duty to her 
already, that hath adventured so much for his sake. . 

This may move any man to pity that ever saw her; . 
for the love of him that ever I judged the most unworthy to be 
matched to such a one as I have known her and seen her to be ” 
(21st May 1665, Reaumur, p. 48). 


184 


MARY STUART. 


Some circumstances indicate that portions of other 
genuine letters by Mary to her husband may also have 
been used for supplying interpolated passages in the 
long memorial, whose character has already been 
discussed. 

There is one remarkable feature of all the letters 
which Morton brought forward—they bear no date, 
no signature, no address. The date, signature, and 
address were then commonly on the last leaf, and were 
gone on each of the papers. That leaf was possibly 
taken off after the date of the Council minute which 
first charged Mary with the minder, for in that minute 
they describe the letters as “ subscryvit with her awen 
hand,” which, when produced, they certainly were not . 1 

While Mary was a prisoner in England, Murray, 
Morton, Lethington, and their supporters, after much 
coquetting for terms, gratified Elizabeth in the end by 
making before her the formal charge of murder against 
Mary, and by exhibiting these precious papers and all 
their proofs . 2 But the English judges must soon have 
seen through the true character of these writings, for 
when Mary became urgent in her demands to see the 
letters, Elizabeth sent Murray and them back to Edin¬ 
burgh, and set on foot a scheme of compromise . 3 Her 

1 Act of Secret Council, 4th Dec. 1567 (Goodall, ii. 62). 

2 The Queen of England, having obtained her intent, received 
great contentment. First, she thought she had matter for her 
to show wherefore she retained the Queen; then she was glad 
too of the Queen’s dishonour (Melville’s Memoirs , Bannatyne, 
Edinburgh). 

3 Goodall, ii. 279 and 300. 


MARY STUART. 


185 


written instructions to the negotiator whom she em¬ 
ployed desire him “ so to prepare your speech (to 
the captive Queen) as coming only of yourself, and not 
by any direction; but rather seeming that you would 
be glad to deale herein for her; and as you shall see 
cause to use any other reasons to induce her to this 
purpois. . . . And lest ‘she may have some 

speeche hereof with the Lord Scroope, we thynk it 
good that you inform hym of the same also with great 
secrecy, that he may agree with you in opinion. 
. . . And in anywise not to be known that you 

are directed from us in this cause.” Elizabeth's whole 
game at that time was to get a slur thrown on Mary, 
for the purpose of discrediting her with the Catholic 
party and the country, and to give her some pretext 
to foreign powders for keeping her in prison. 1 She 
provided Murray with £5000 when he had done her 
this service. 2 And as Mary was still clamorous, and 
no doubt some of Elizabeth's Privy Councillors dis¬ 
gusted, the English Council finally recorded that “ there 
had been nathing sufficiently producit nor schowin be 
them (Murray and his accomplices) againis the Quene 
thair Soverane, quhairby the Quene of Ingland sould 
conceave or tak ony evil opinioun of the Quene her 
guid sister for onything yit sene ;” 3 —the four spiteful 
words at the end being perhaps introduced by Eliza- 

1 Privy Council Minute (Goodall, ii. 278). 

2 See his acknowledgment and obligation, £5000, 18th Jan. 
1568-9, in Goodall, ii. 313. 

3 10th January 1568-9 (Privy Council Minute, printed by 
Goodall, ii. 305). 


i86 


MARY STUART 


beth herself, and at all events obviously intended to 
prevent tbe sore from being fully healed. This was 
more than a month after the forged writings, and all 
the evidence that Murray and Morton could produce, 
had been examined by Elizabeth and her Privy 
Council, with the aid of her Judges. 1 Seeing these 
papers were withheld from Mary, and such an acknow¬ 
ledgment left by her bitterest enemies, one cannot but 
be amazed that the authenticity of the papers should 
have been assumed by such authors as Froude, Mignet, 
and Lamartine, as well as the younger Tytler. And it 
must be remembered that this was not a mere specu¬ 
lative opinion of the English Council, but a great Act 
of State relating to the next heir of the English throne. 
If they had seen ground to implicate Mary in a charge 
of murder, it would have been their duty to advise 
measures for excluding her claims to succeed, which 
the most powerful of them had always earnestly desired 
on account of her religion. The Duke of Norfolk, who 
was Elizabeth's chief commissioner for the examination 
of these papers, entered into a secret treaty for marriage 
with Mary; and Elizabeth was so much alarmed for 
the consequences that she sent him to the scaffold. 
He thus testified with his blood his belief in Marys 
innocence. 2 Even Cecil seems to have been so con- 

1 See Goodall, ii. 235, 239, 241, 257. 

2 Hume says the Duke of Norfolk “ believed the papers 
authentic, and was fully convinced of Mary’s guilt,” and that the 
Duke acknowledged this to Bannister, his most secret confidant. 
But the author finds that, when this was alleged at the Duke’s 


MARY STUART. 


187 


vinced of the murder charge having been for ever 
exploded, that when he, some time afterwards, drew 
up a list of accusations against Mary, he thought of 
bringing her to trial for marrying Darnley, an English 
subject, without Elizabeth’s consent, but there was not 
another word about his death. 

How, then, did the letters by Mary to her husband 
come into the hands of Morton ? He confessed, as we 
have seen, that Archibald Douglas, who was his cousin 
and agent, reported to him that he had been at the 
King’s death; and Morton’s possession of letters 
which must have been got at that time, is an addi¬ 
tional link to the chain which, without it, brought the 
murder home to both him and Archibald. 

trial (which cost him his life), his Grace replied—“ Bannister 
was shrewdly cramped (put to torture) when he told that 
tale. I beseech you let me have him brought face to face.” 
According to Hume, also, “ the account given by Morton of 
the manner in which the papers came into his hands is very 
natural! ”—“ the very disappearance of these letters is a presump¬ 
tion of their authenticity!” and he suggests that they may have 
been put out of the way by King James's friends. He mentions 
that Crawford’s evidence disappeared from the Cotton Library, 
and that “ this must have proceeded from the like cause.” But 
Crawford’s evidence is in the State Paper Office to this day.— 
He acknowledges that “the sonnets are inelegant;” but thinks 
it a sufficient explanation to remark that “ criminal enterprises 
leave little tranquillity of mind for elegant poetical composi¬ 
tions!” Such has been the influence of partisanship in this 
question upon even so great a writer as Hume. 


MARY STUART. 


CHAPTER XXVI. 

We must return for a moment to tlie period which 
preceded Darnley’s death. The attempt which was 
made, two months before that event, to persuade the 
Queen to divorce him, has already been mentioned. 
It is very fully recited in a “ protestation” of the Earls 
of Huntly and Argyle, two of the lords who joined in 
the proposal. 1 They state that Murray and Lethington 
came to them at Craigmillar in the end of November 
or beginning of December, first to Argyle while in bed, 
and next to Huntly, proposed the divorce, and induced 
them to agree; that the four then went together to 
Bothwell, and having obtained his concurrence, passed 
with him to the Queen s presence. Lethington, in the 
name of them all, “ remembered her Majesty of a great 
number of grievous and intolerable offences that the 
King had done, (and that he was) continuing every 
day from evil to worse,” proposed a divorce, and re¬ 
presented “ that it was necessary that her Majesty 
take heed to make resolution therein, as well for her 
own easement as the welfare of the realm:” addins* 

3 o 

that the King “ troubled her Grace and us all,” and 
that he would not cease “ till he did her some other 
evil turn,” which she would find it hard to remedy. 

1 Goodall, ii. 316. See Appendix hereto, No. XIX. 


MARY STUART. 


189 


Then they all joined in similar persuasions, urging (as 
we are told in a separate writing of the Scottish lords, 
signed by Argyle and Huntly among the rest 1 ) that 
the marriage was “ null for consanguinity, in respect 
they alleged the Pope's dispensation had not been pub¬ 
lished." She said she might “ understand ” their pro¬ 
posals if the divorce could be made, first, lawfully, and 
second, without prejudice to her son, for without these 
conditions she would rather “ abide the perils that 
might chance in her Grace's lifetime." They tried to 
assure her on these points; but she replied, speaking of 
her husband : “ Peradventure he would change opinion, 
and that it were better that she herself for a time 
passed into France, abiding till he acknowledged him¬ 
self." Lethington replied : “ Madam, fancy ye not we 
are here of the principal of your Grace's nobility and 
Council that shall find the means that your Majesty 
shall be quit of him, without prejudice of your son ?" 
He added : “ Albeit that my Lord of Murray here pre¬ 
sent be little less scrupulous for a Protestant than your 
Grace is for a Papist, I am assured he will look through 
his fingers thereto, and will behold our doings, saying 
nothing to the same." The Queen's Majesty answered : 
“ I will that ye do nothing wherethrough any spot 
may be laid to my honor or conscience; and therefore, 
I pray you, rather let the matter be in the estate as it 
is, abiding till God of his goodness put remedy thereto, 
that you, believing to do me service, may possibly 
turn to my hurt and displeasure." “ Madam," said 
1 Goodall, ii. 359. 


190 


MARY STUART. 


Lethington, “ let us guide the matter among us, and 
your Grace shall see nothing but good } and approved 
by Parliament.” 

Mr. Froude insinuates that the Queen must have 
understood these as suggestions of murder, and he 
omits Lethington’s closing assurance. He adds: She 
said generally that she would do what they re¬ 
quired; 1 “ they had better leave it alone” 2 He gives 
these words in inverted commas, as proceeding from 
the Queens mouth. On referring to the narrative on 
which he founds (which we give in the Appendix No. 
XIX.), the reader will find that they are entirely his 
own. 

The conditions stated by the Queen were indeed 
checkmate to their scheme of divorce. How could 
the marriage be lawfully annulled from the begin¬ 
ning without risking the child’s claims to succeed 
to both Crowns ? So far from assenting to their scheme 
of divorce, the Queen interposed a practical difficulty 
which absolutely put an end to it. They did not 
attempt to proceed farther with it, but were driven to 
other devices. Its immediate effect was to bring the 
Queen and King together, 3 though he broke off again 
after the Prince’s baptism. 

1 Froude, viii. 345. 2 Ibid. viii. 347. 

3 El Key de Escocia ha ya The King of Scotland has, 
viente dias que esta con la for these twenty days, been 
Keyna, y comen juntos; y, with the Queen, and they eat 
aunque parece que no perdera together; and although it is 
tan presto del todo el desgusto not likely that her distaste of the 
del Eey per las cosas pasadas, King for the past occurrences 


MARY STUART. 


191 

But Mr. Froude, in his anxiety to inculpate the 
Queen, here found that he had brought himself into a 
difficulty as to his “ stainless Murray.” For if Leth- 
ington s proposals pointed to murder, what is to be 
said of Murray's acquiescence in the declaration that 
he was to look through his fingers at the deed ? Mr. 
Froude thinks it enough to say: “ Such subjects are 
not usually discussed in too loud a tone, and he may 
not have heard them distinctly !’ n Yet the docu¬ 
ment to which Mr. Froude refers proves that the 
entire proposal (whatever it meant) originated with 
Murray and Lethington. 

What darker eventualities may have been in their 
minds is a different question. But it is unfair to in¬ 
sinuate that their words, at the time they were spoken, 
conveyed any other than their natural and legitimate 
meaning to the Queen. 

And why did they speak of divorce at all ? Why 
not then have proposed, as they afterwards did (their 

todavia piensa que el tiempo, will so soon be wholly overcome, 
y estar juntos, y el Key deter- yet it is thought (qu. I think) 
minado de complacerle hard that time and their being to- 
mucho ’en la buena reconcilia* . gether, and the King being re- 
cion (De Silva to Philip, De- solved to please her, will do 
cember 18, 1566 ; MS. Siman- much towards a satisfactory re- 
cas). conciliation (De Silva to Philip, 

December 18, 1566 ; MS. Si- 
mancas). 

This letter is dated three days after the Prince’s baptism, and 
about three weeks after the proposal of divorce had been made 
to the Queen. 

1 Froude, viii. 346. 


192 


MARY STUART. 


last cast before proceeding with tlie murder), to con¬ 
vict Darnley of treason ? 1 Obviously because they 


1 They offered “ to get him convict of treason because he 
consented to her Grace’s retention in ward,” “ quhilk altogedder 
hir Grace refusit, as is manifestlie knawin, so that it may be 
clearly considered hir Grace having the commoditie to find the 
means to be separate and yet wald not consent thereto, that hir 
Grace wald never have consentit to his murthour having sic 
uther likelie means to have been made quit of him be the Lord’s 
own device” (Instructions of the Scottish Nobles and Prelates, 
etc., 12th September 1568; Goodall, ii. 359). This is remark¬ 
ably confirmed by the following extract of a letter of the Spanish 
ambassador to Philip, king of Spain :— 


Habia entendido que viendo 
algunos el desgusto que habia 
entre estos Reyes, habian ofre- 
cido & la Reyna de hacer algo 
contra su marido, y que ella no 
habia venido en ello. Aunque 
tuve este aviso de buena parte 
pareciome cosa que no se debia 
creer que se hubiese tratado con 
la Reyna semejante platica (De 
Silva to Philip, 18 th January 
1567; MS. Simancas). 


I have heard that some 
persons, seeing the antipathy 
which existed between the 
King and Queen, had offered to 
the Queen to do something 
against her husband, and that 
she had not consented to it. Al¬ 
though I had this information 
from a good source, it seemed 
to me to be a matter which 
was not credible that any such 
overture should be made to the 
Queen (De Silva to Philip, 18th 
January 1567 ; MS. Simancas). 


This letter is published in Spanish by Mr. Froude (viii. 
347 and 348), so that it is not intelligible to the general reader. 
He misplaces it, putting it before De Silva’s letter of 18th De¬ 
cember (footnote, supra), and represents it as an account of the 
proposal of divorce made in the end of November or beginning 
of December. It is not likely that De Silva would have been 
so far behind with his news. The date of this letter corre¬ 
sponds remarkably with the date of Morton’s return to Scot¬ 
land (10th January), and his immediate meeting at Whitting- 


MARY STUART 


*93 


feared that, on the slightest hint of harm to him, the 
quarrel between her and her husband would be, as it 
was eventually, appeased. 

At the time when this proposal of divorce was 
made, Archibald Douglas was carrying on his secret 
negotiations between Morton and his banished accom¬ 
plices on the one hand, and Murray, Both well, Argyle, 
and Lethington, on the other,' the basis of which 
was that Morton and his comrades were to join in 
the league against Darnley ; 1 and of the five coun- 

hame with Lethington, Bothwell, and Archibald Douglas (see 
Drury’s letter of 23d January 1566-67—Tytler, vii. 442 ; and 
Archibald Douglas’s statement, in footnote infra). 

1 Archibald Douglas’s narrative, addressed to the Queen when 
she was a prisoner in England, states : “I was permitted to re¬ 
pair in Scotland, to deal with Earls Murray, Athol, Bodwel, 
Arguile, and Secretary Ledington, in the name and behalf of the 
said Earl Morton, Lords Reven, Lindsay, and remanent complesis, 
that' they might make offer in the names of the said Earl of any 
matter that might satisfy your Majesty’s wrath, and procure your 
clemency to be extended in their favours. At my coming to 
them, after I had opened the effect of my message, they declared 
that the marriage betwixt you and your husband had been the occasion 
already of great evil in that realm ; and if your husband should be 
suffered to follow the appetite and mind of such as was about 
him, that kind of dealing might produce with time worse effects; 
for helping of such inconvenience that might fall out by that 
kind of dealing, they had thought it convenient to join themselves in 
league and band with some other noblemen, , resolved to obey your 
Majesty as their natural sovereign, and have nothing to do with 
your husband’s command whatsoever;—if the said Earl would for 
himself enter into that band and confederacy with them, they 
could be content to humbly request and travel by all means with 
your Majesty for his pardon ; but before they could any farther 
proceed, they desired to know the said Earl’s mind herein. 

0 


194 


MAR Y STUART 


cillors who made the proposal of divorce, we now 
know for certain that Lethington, Huntly, and Both- 
well were directly concerned in the King’s murder; 
Argyle sat as justice-general and chief judge at Both- 
well’s trial, and promoted his collusive acquittal; and 

When I had answered that he nor his friends, at my departure, 
could not know that any such like matter would he proponit, and 
therefore was not instructed what to answer therein, they desired 
that I should return sufficiently instructed in this matter to Ster¬ 
ling, before the baptism of your son, whom God might preserve. 
This message was faithfully delivered by me at Newcastle in 
England, where the said Earl then remained, in presence of his 
friends and company, where they all condescended to have no far¬ 
ther dealing with your husband, and to enter into the said band. 
With this deliberation I returned to Sterling, where, at the re¬ 
quest of the most Christian King, and the Queen’s Majesty of 
England, by their ambassadors present, your Majesty’s gracious 
pardon was granted unto them all, under condition always that 
they should remain banished forth of the realm the space of two 
years, and further during your Majesty’s pleasure; which limita¬ 
tion was after mitigated at the humble request of your own 
nobility ;—so that, immediately after, the said Earl of Morton re¬ 
paired into Scotland to Quhittingaime, where the Earl of Bodwell 
and Secretary Ledington came to him. What speech passed 
there amongst them, as God shall be my judge, I knew nothing 
at that time, but at their departure I was requested by the said 
Earl of Morton to accompany the Earl Bodwell and Secretary to 
Edenburgh, and to return with such answer as they should obtain 
of your Majesty; which being given to me by the said persons, 
as God shall be my judge, was no other than these words :— 
‘ Shew to the Earl Morton that the Queen will hear no speech of 
that matter appointed unto him.’ ”—This was no doubt the occa¬ 
sion on which the Queen was urged to issue a warrant for treason 
against Darnley; and the Queen’s refusal to hear speech of the 
matter, as told by Douglas, agrees with the Spanish ambassador’s 
letter of 18th January (footnote, supra, p. 192). Mr. Archibald 
proceeds :—“ When I craved that the answer might be more 


MARY STUART. 


i 95 


Murray’s acts were altogether conformable to the pro¬ 
gramme which Lethington laid out for him and he 
acquiesced in. He “ looked through his fingers” at 
their doings. 

His more active participation in the King’s death 
was probably excused by his fellow-conspirators, just 
as it had been on the occasion of Riccio’s assassination. 
It was necessary to the success of their schemes that 
his hands should if possible appear to the world to be 
unstained, as Mr. Froude thinks they were. We know 
that of design he was absent till Riccio had been 
disposed of , 1 and he left Edinburgh opportunely on the 
day before the King’s murder, though entreated by 
the Queen, and required by important public duty, to 
remain. He lost little time in availing himself of the 
King’s death to secure the ratification of his estates, 
which he had desired so long; and the fact that the 
conspirators, with one voice, placed him at their head 
in the moment of final success, and awarded to him 
the chief spoils of their deed, shows how fully they 
recognised his concurrence. 

sensible, Secretary Ledington said that the Earl would sufficiently 
understand it, albeit few or none at that time understand what 
passed amongst them. It is known to all men, als weill by raid¬ 
ing letters passed betwixt the said Earl and Ledington when 
they became in divers factions, as also ane book sett furth by 
the ministers, wherein they affirm that the Earl of Morton has 
confessed to them, before his death, that the Earl Bodwell came 
to Quhittingaime to propone the calling away of the King your 
husband, to the which proposition the said Earl of Morton affirms 
that he could give no answer unto such time he might know 
your Majesty’s mind therein, which he never received.” 

1 See ante, pp. 54, 55. 


196 


MARY STUART. 


CHAPTER XXVII. 

A fair consideration of the history, as a whole, exoner¬ 
ates Mary Stuart of the guilt with which her memory 
has been loaded. Even if her affection for her husband 
had been destroyed by his misconduct, her interests 
and ambition prompted her to forgive him. Her eyes 
had been fixed through life on the throne of England, 
which she believed to be rightfully hers. Her marriage 
with Darnley had first been suggested to strengthen 
that claim. Her hopes there had never been so high 
as at the time of her child’s baptism, and it was thus 
a vital object to her to retain the support of Darnley’s 
party in England. 

Darnley was looking in the same direction. Even 
while in Glasgow, apart from the Queen, he engaged in 
intrigues against Elizabeth’s Crown which would have 
been meaningless if he was to remain apart from his 
wife. Elizabeth well understood their true feelings 
towards each other. She held an anxious inquiry 
only a week before Mary and her husband were finally 
reconciled, into a plot of Darnley’s for seizing Scar¬ 
borough Castle, in Yorkshire, where the Catholic party 
was very strong, as an advanced post towards a rising 
against her. And she had recently discovered that 
the Poles, rival claimants of the English Crown, had 


MARY STUART. 


197 


transferred their claims to the Queen and King of 
Scotland. The public reconciliation which immedi¬ 
ately followed was thus nearly as alarming to Eliza¬ 
beth as to any of the Scottish nobles. 

But if we could, nevertheless, suppose that Mary 
was willing to sacrifice the scheme of her life, to which 
Darnley was thus essential, what are we to think of 
the manner of his death ? 

She had but to withhold her protection from him, 
and the fierce and powerful men whom he had mor¬ 
tally offended would at once have brought him to 
justice and the block . 1 There was undeniable proof 
of his treason, in the conspiracy against Biccio, which 
had cost the Queen her liberty. And yet we are asked 
to believe that she, having his life lawfully in her 
hands, and whose resolute will alone barred the law 
from execution, chose to creep to his bedside; to fawn 
upon him; to kiss him, like Judas, that she might 
betray him ; to plot, lie, and do things which her 
accusers’ very forgeries represent her as speaking of 

1 Goodall, ii. 359. The instructions by Huntly, Argyle, Craw¬ 
ford, Eglinton, and other noblemen and prelates, for Mary’s 
vindication, contain the following remarkable passage :— 

“ They (i.e. Murray and his accomplices) heiring of the zoung 
behaviour throw fulage counsal of her said husband, causit mak 
offeris to our said Soverane Lady, gif her Grace wald give remis- 
sioun to them that were banishit at that time, to find causes of 
divorce, outher for consanguinitie, in respect they alledgit the 
dispensation was not publishit, or else for adulterie, or then to 
get him convict of tressoun, because he consentit to her Grace’s 
retention in ward; or quhat uther wayis to despeche him; 
quhilk altogedder her Grace refusit , as is manifestlie knawin.” 


198 


MARY STUART. 


with horror,—and all to entice him in her own train 
from Glasgow to Edinburgh—that he might be there, 
somewhat more conveniently, blowm in the air! If 
the mode of death was to be so flagrant and reckless, 
why take so much trouble ?—why bring herself need¬ 
lessly into personal contact with her victim ? 

Mr. Froude says, that “ if Darnley had been stabbed 
in. a scuffle, or helped to death by a dose of arsenic in 
his bed, the fair fame of the Queen of Scots would 
have suffered little, and the tongues that dared to 
mutter would have been easily silenced ; n and nothing 
can be more true. 

But if the conception of the murderers was to 
throw the crime on the Queen, then we can under¬ 
stand w r hy it was done—not for concealment—but 
with a thunderclap that was to reverberate over Eu¬ 
rope. Mr. Froude seems to have felt this difficulty. 
But he has a theory that it was done in this way by 
Mary for dramatic sensation. He speaks of her as 
“ wrought up to the murder point by some personal 
passion, which was not contented with the death 
of its victim, and required a fuller satisfaction in 
the picturesqueness of dramatic revenge/' 2 Such 
is his notion of historical probability and truth to 
nature. He meets the difficulty, on his assumption 
of her guilt, of accounting for the employment of such 
an astounding method of murder, which, he says, 
“ challenged the attention of the whole civilised world ” 3 
(and so it did, and so it was planned to do); and he 
1 Froude, viii. 340. 2 Ibid. viii. 340. 3 Ibid. viii. 340. 


MARY ST [/ART. 


I 99 


suggests, as an adequate explanation, that it was so 
done to gratify an assumed passion for sensational 
drama! He tells us, too, that “with that lightning- 
flash” “Mary Stuart’s chances of the English throne 
perished also f 1 and that on the night on which the 
news reached London, the Catholics began to transfer 
their allegiance from her. Was not that the re¬ 
sult for which Elizabeth had intrigued through so 
many years, now at last accomplished, under circum¬ 
stances which were intended to blot the fame of Mary 
Stuart, but which leave a blacker shadow of suspicion 
upon herself ? When you can lay your finger on the 
persons who derive most profit from a great crime, 
you have gone a good way towards the discovery of 
its authors. 

Here is an incident, authenticated by Mary’s 
worst slanderer :—The royal widow had gone to look 
for the last time on the dead young husband whom 
she had chosen, at the cost of a rebellion, only nineteen 
months before, and for whom she had suffered so much. 
The fountain of her tears was dry; for 

Deep affliction chills the heart, and freezes every tear. 

She looked long and earnestly upon that body, the 
handsomest of his age, but gave no sign by which the 
secret emotions of her heart could be discovered. 
What a scene! Could the wit of man imagine any¬ 
thing more tender and pathetic? He who could 
transfer that picture to canvas would make himself 
immortal. 


J Fronde, viii. 370. 


200 


MARY STUART. 


When Mary Stuart was executed, the executioner 
claimed her personal ornaments as his perquisite. 
This was resisted by one of her ladies, Jane Kennedy, 
afterwards Lady Melville, who could not bear to see 
them in such hands; and there was a struggle for 
their possession. Others of her effects were seized by 
the English Government, and among them there was 
found a tablet of enamelled gold, bearing a portrait 
of Henry Lord Darnley, one of her life-cherished trea¬ 
sures. 1 But there was one ring which was not found, 
which may have been dropped on the scaffold, and 
swept away among the dust. It was a signet-ring, 
with the monograms of Henry and Mary knit together 
by true love-knots, and bearing the date 1565, the year 
of their marriage. It was found, within the last twenty 
years, among the ruins of the old castle where she 
died; 2 thus coming forth, after centuries, as a silent 
witness that Mary Stuart kept the promise of her last 
letter to her unfortunate husband, by cherishing her 
love as long as she had life. 

1 State Papers, vol. xxi. No. 20. 

2 Strickland, vii. 475. The elaborate and careful researches 
of Miss Strickland have contributed more than those of any 
other writer to the truth of Mary Stuart’s history. 


MARY STUART 


201 


CHAPTER XXVIII. 

God dealt out his signal punishments to most of the 
conspirators, even in this world. But, so far as we 
know, Archibald Douglas escaped. He is described 
by a contemporary as “ a very old foxand, like Mor¬ 
ton and Balfour, he had powerful protectors. He re¬ 
turned to Scotland five years after Morton’s execution, 
was tried for the murder of Darnley, and was acquitted. 
A contemporary writer says the trial was thought to 
be collusive, and contrived by Randolph and the 
Master of Gray. 1 The popular belief is fully verified 
by some remarkable documents now found in the State 
Paper Office. 

Archibald Douglas arrived in Edinburgh in 1586 
with a letter, under Queen Elizabeth’s own hand, to 
King James; and James, a true son of Darnley, re¬ 
ceived him secretly, and bargained for the acquittal of 
his father’s murderer. Mr. Archibald, in a letter to 
Walsingham, the English secretary, narrates his meet¬ 
ing with James on the 4 th of May, his delivery of 
Elizabeth’s letter, and James’s assurance that he should 
have a favourable trial. 2 The Master of Gray was 

1 Moyse’s Memoirs , p. 108. 

2 “ Advertisement was made that the king was coming, and 
commanded that no man should remain in the chamber. After 
whose entry some speeches being uttered by me, ... I de- 


202 


MARY STUART. 


foreman of the jury which acquitted Douglas, and nine 
days before the trial he writes to Walsingham: 

“Mr. Archibald Douglas shall be, God willing, 
very soon put to trial; for the king since my last 
hath condescended to all things ; >n and he urges that 
£1000 of the money promised to James should be 
sent at once. 

Four days after this letter was despatched, James 
issued a pardon under the Great Seal to Archibald 
Douglas, for all crimes and treasons, 2 except Darnley’s 
murder; with a singular proviso, that notwithstand¬ 
ing the exception, the pardon should include the fore¬ 
knowledge and concealing of the murder. Having thus 
cleared away that important part of the evidence, 
James gave a special commission to John Prestoun 
and Edward Bruce, as justices in that part, to proceed 
with the trial. But even with all this preparation 
Archibald did not feel himself safe till he packed the 
jury. By some contrivance a sufficient number of 
jurymen did not attend. And the complaisant judges 

livered Her Majesty’s letter, which being read, he uttered these 
or the like speeches : “ At your departure, I was your enemy, and 
now at your returning I am and shall be your friend.” “ For 
your surety I must confess her Ma ties - request in your favour to 
be honorable and favorable.” “ I will impute unto you neither 
foreknowledge, neither concealing, and desire that you may ad-. 
vise with my secretary what may be most agreeable to my 
honour and your surety in trial, and it shall be performed” 
(from original letter by Archibald Douglas to Walsingham, 6th 
May 1586 ; State Paper Office, Scotland, Elizabeth, vol. xxxix.) 

1 The full letter, from the original, is in the Appendix, No. XX. 

2 21st May 1586 (Pitcairn’s Trials, vol. i. p. 144). 


MARY STUART. 


203 


waited in court while the prisoner, under trial for 
murder, wrote a letter to the King (!) which brought 
this rescript:— 

“ Rex. 

“ Justices and our advocat, and your deput, we 
greet you well. We understand that Mr. Archibald 
Douglas is enterit presently on pannel, and that his 
tryall stays because that sic persons as are summoned 
upon his assize compeirs nocht, and that there laiks 
yet some persons of the perfect number; therefore it 
is our will, that according to the laws of our realm 
and practick of your court, ye supply the absentis 
with sic gentlemen as ye may get either within our 
burgh of Edinburgh, or within the bar , and cause them 
to be sworn upon the said inquest, to the effect the 
said matter receive na langer delay, keepand this precept 
for your warrant. Subscryvit with our hand at Haly- 
rud House, the 26 day of May 1586. 

“ James R.” 

Eight jurymen were then added to the jury from 
those who attended the prisoner. Morton’s confession 
was kept back, and Archibald successfully pleaded his 
pardon as excluding evidence of previous concert. 
The jury of course declared him innocent, and Darn- 
ley’s worthy son, to conciliate Elizabeth, sent him 
back to England as his ambassador. For what service 
Elizabeth wanted him, and how he executed it within 
twelve months of his acquittal, we shall see after¬ 
wards. 


204 


MARY STUART. 


Besides a money bribe, it would seem that James 
bad reason to expect that lie should be rewarded by 
his immediate recognition as heir of Elizabeth. He 
got a formal deed to that effect drawn up and sent to 
her, and it is amusing to see how Elizabeth evaded 
this when her purpose was gained. Within a fort¬ 
night after Archibald Douglas was acquitted, Cecil 
(now become Lord Burghly) writes to Randolph— 1 

“ ls£. That the Queen never promised more than 
£4000. 

“ 2d. For the other point, in not returning the 
instrument signed, her Mat ie hath considered thereof, 
and found in it something comprised meeter to pass 
betwixt strange persons that sought assurance of profit 
by form of words written, and instruments valid in 
straight form of law, than by favour of mutual kind¬ 
ness and reciproque love, out of which most properlie 
all liberalitie and points of love doe spring; and for 
that purpose hir Mat ie , respecting rather the substance 
of the said instrument than the law-like form, did for- 
beare to admit the same in such form; and did, by 
her said letter of the 26th of April to that King, de¬ 
clare her mind as well for her [illegible] as for his 
suretie, and for helping of his neade; as also for the 
latter clauses required by the instrument concerning 
the King’s satisfaction, that he should not fear anie 
acts weare to be done by her Ma tie to damnifie him in 
any such, either in present or future time. 

1 Burglily to Bandolph, 1586, June 9th (State Paper Office, 
Scotland, vol. 40, No. 18). 


MARY STUART 


205 


CHAPTER XXIX. 

Mary’s escape from Lochleven 1 lias been often described 
both in history and romance. The heart of Scotland 
had turned in her favour, and supporters crowded to 
her. Her subsequent defeat at Langside 2 was due to 
the military skill of Kirkcaldy of Grange, and to her 
having no soldier of capacity to array her forces. She 
then threw herself on the protection of Elizabeth, 3 
who had treacherously sent her a ring as a pledge that 
she might rely on her in extremity. 

It is not the purpose of these pages to narrate 
her weary imprisonment in England. We shall notice 
only, and very briefly, a few things which mark the 
spirit of her persecutors. 

Even as a prisoner she was a constant terror to 
Elizabeth. Many a scheme was thought of to get rid 
of her. 

Randolph characteristically proposed poison.—There 
is a letter of Leicester’s which proves that during 
some civil disturbance a warrant was issued under the 
Great Seal to take her life without trial. 4 —A special 

1 2d May 1568. 2 13th May 1568. 3 16th May 1568. 

4 “ Remember how upon a less cause, how effectually all the 
Council of England once dealt with her Majesty for justice to be 
done upon that person for being suspected and infamed to be con¬ 
senting with Northumberland and Westmoreland in the rebellion. 


206 


MARY STUART. 


envoy, Killigrew, Cecils brother-in law, was sent to 
Scotland with written instructions, enforced by Eliza¬ 
beth in person, to negotiate a scheme for having Mary 
sent back to Scotland, with secret conditions and hos¬ 
tages to be given for her execution within four hours 
after she crossed the Border . 1 But the death of Murray 
and of Mar after they had successively consented, ren¬ 
dered this negotiation abortive.—The one thing which 
saved Mary’s life till the end of nineteen years of cap¬ 
tivity was Elizabeth’s dread that the world would fix 
on her the responsibility of her death. 

You know the Great Seal of England was sent then, and thought 
just and meet, upon the sudden for her execution” (letter by 
Leicester as to Mary Stuart, 10th October 1585 ; Tytler, vii. 463). 

1 Secret Instructions for H. Killigrew , September 10, 1572. 

(In Lord Burleigh’s hand.) 

“ Upon a singular trust, you are chosen to deale in a third 
matter, of a farr gretar moment, wherein all secrecy and circum¬ 
spection is to be used as yourself considere that the matter re- 
quireth. 

“ It is found dayly more and more that the contynuanee of 
the Quene of Scots here is so dangerooss, both for the person of 
the Quene’s Majesty, and for her state and realme, as nothing 
presently is more necessary than that the realme might be deli¬ 
vered of her ; and though by justice this might be done in this 
realme, yet for certain respects it seemeth better that she be sent 
into Scotland, to be delivered to the Regent and his party, so as 
it may be by some good means wrought, that they themselves 
would secretly require it ; and that good assurance may be given, 
that as they have heretofore many tymes, specially in the time of 
the Quene’s former Regents, offered, so they wold without fayle 
proceed with her by wey of justice, so as nether that realme nor 
this should be dangered by hir herafter; for otherwise to have 


MARY STUART 


207 


At last she got a law passed by her Parliament, 
setting forth that there were plots against her, and ren¬ 
dering responsible for the acts and designs of partisans 
any person having or pretending right to succeed to 
the Crown. It enacted a forfeiture of all title to suc- 

hir and to kepe hir were of all other most dangeroos. Now, how 
this may he compassed you ar to considre, at your coming thyther, 
with whom of the King's party it were best for you to deale, 
making choiss of some such as yow shall fynde best perswaded 
of the perill to that state by her continuance either here or there, 
and such as you shall fynde most addicted to the King ther, and 
with such you may, as of yourself, secretly conferr ; and if other¬ 
wise it shall not be directly moved to yow, than you may give 
the said party some lykelehood to thynk that if ther were any 
ernest means secretly made by the Regent and the Erie of Morton 
to some of the Lords of the Counsell here, to have hir delyvered 
to them, it might be at this tyme better than at any tyme here¬ 
tofore brought to pass that they might have hir, so as ther might 
be good surety gyven that she should receive that she hath de¬ 
served ther, by ordre of justice, whereby no furder perill should 
ensue by hir escaping or setting hir upp ageyn. For otherwise 
you may well saye that the Counsell of England will never assent 
to deliver hir out of the realme; and for assurance none can 
suffice but hostages of good valew ; that is, some children and 
near kinsfolk of the Regent and the Erie of Morton. 

« Herein you shall, as commodite shall serve yow, use all good 
spede, with the most secresy that you can, to understand ther 
mynds ; and yet so to deale to your uttermost, that this matter 
might be rather oppened to you, than yourself to seem first to 
move it; and as you fynde ther disposition, so to accelerate ther 
disposition, and to advertise with all spede possible ; for so the 
tyme requyreth, that celerite be used to have this doone before 
the French enter any deeper ther in credit ; and that with all 
secresy, lest it be interrupted by some furder dangerooss prac¬ 
tise” (Murden’s State Papers, p. 224; Tytler’s Inquiry, vol. ii. 
p. 314). 


208 


MARY STUART 


ceed, and tlie penalty of death. Elizabeth bound her 
chief nobles and counsellors by an oath of association 
to persecute “to the death” any who should offend 
against that act; and then she sent them to try her 
prisoner. They brought against Mary deciphers, 
which they said they had taken from letters in cipher 
written by her secretaries. They refused to let her 
secretaries come face to face with her. She protested 
against their jurisdiction, and in her absence they pro¬ 
nounced her guilty. Even Mignet says : “At Fother- 
ingay they examined the accused without the wit¬ 
nesses, and at Westminster the witnesses without the 
accused.” 1 The violence of these proceedings roused 
the utmost indignation in Scotland. Elizabeth dreaded 
that the national feeling might drive even James to 
resist her; and James gathered strength to write to 
Archibald Douglas, now his ambassador in London, in 
terms which, if addressed to an honest agent, would 
probably have arrested the designs on Mary’s life :— 
“ Reserve up yourself na langer in the ernest dealing 
for my mother, for ye have done it too long; and think 
not that any your travellis can do goode if her lyfe be 
takin, for then adieu with my dealing with thaime 
that are the special instrumentis thairof; and there¬ 
fore, gif ye looke for the continuance of my favour 
towartis you, spair na pains nor plainnes in this cace, 
but reade my letter wrettin to William Keith, and 
conform yourself quhollie to the contentis thairof; and 
in this request let me reap the fruictis of youre great 
1 Mignet, ii. 318. 


MARY STUART 


209 


credit there, ather now or never. 1 Fairwell. October 
1586” 

But Mr. Archibald was at Elizabeth’s devotion. 
He exerted every artifice to cajole and intimidate his 
master. With pretended zeal for the young King’s 
interest, he warned him that the Act of Association 
might be directed against his own title to the English 
Crown, if he should take part with his mother. 

“ Nothing,” he wrote to James, 2 “may now cause 
any doubt to arise against your said title, except that 
an opinion should be conceived by these lords of this 
parliament that are so vehement at this time against 
the Queen, your Majesty’s mother, that your Majesty 
is or may be proved hereafter assenting to her pro¬ 
ceedings ; and some that love your Majesty’s service 
were of that opinion, that too earnest request might 
move a ground whereupon suspicions might grow in 
men so ill-affected in that matter, which I tho’t might 
be helped by obtaining of a declaration in parliament 
of your Majesty’s innocence at this time. And by 
reason that good nature and public honesty would 
constrain you to intercede for the Queen your mother, 
which would carry with itself, without any further, 
some suspicion that might move ill-affected men to 
doubt, in my former letters I humbly craved of your 
Majesty that some learned men in the laws might be 

1 Cotton Library, Caligula, c. 9. In James’s handwriting. 
Rob. App. 49. 

2 16th Oct. 1586, Archibald Douglas to King James (Rob. 
App. L.) 

P 


210 


MARY STUART. 


moved to advise with, the words of the Association, 
and the mitigation contained in the Act of Parliament, 
and withall to advise what suspicious effects your 
Majesty’s request might work in these choleric men at 
this time, and how their minds might be best moved 
to receive reason; and upon all these considerations 
they might have framed the words of a declarator of 
your Majesty’s innocence to be obtained in this parlia¬ 
ment ; and failing thereof, the very words of a pro¬ 
testation for the same effect that might best serve for 
your Majesty’s service, and for my better information.” 

Through these contrivances of the treacherous 
Douglas, James was reduced to silence, and his mother 
was left to her fate. 


MARY STUART. 


21 I 


CHAPTER XXX. 

Though Mary had been condemned, and James silenced, 
a serious difficulty remained. The fatal warrant must 
be signed by Elizabeth’s own hand, and how was she 
to evade the responsibility ? 

She signed it. It was executed. She pretended 
not to know that it was done. She dismissed, dis¬ 
graced, and ruined Davidson, her secretary, on the 
pretence that, although she had signed it as a matter 
of form, he had acted against her intentions in carry¬ 
ing it into execution. 

Davidson boldly avowed the truth, at the peril of 
his life. 

He stated—ls£. That he had absolutely refused to 
sign the Oath of Association against Queen Mary. 

2 d. That he went out of the way to avoid acting 
as a commissioner for examining her secretaries. 

3 d. That the warrant was written by the Lord 
Treasurer, and was given to him, with Elizabeth’s pri¬ 
vity, to be ready to sign when she should call for it. 

4 th. That he kept it five or six weeks unpresented, 
till she sent a counsellor for him; and that he was 
sharply reproved for his delay by a great Peer in her 
Majesty’s own presence. 

5 th. That he read the warrant to her Majesty, and 


212 


MARY STUART. 


that when she had signed it she commanded him to 
carry it to the Great Seal, and being sealed, to send it 
immediately away,—herself appointing the hall of 
%otheringay for the place of execntion^misliking the 
courtyard in divers respects; and in conclusion, ab¬ 
solutely forbade him to trouble her any further, or let 
her hear any more hereof till it was done. 1 

Davidson's narrative, which is in manuscript in the 
British Museum, 2 proceeds :— 

“ After I had gathered my papers and was ready 
to depart, shee fell into some complaint of Sir Amias 
Paulet and others, that might have eased her of this 
burden, wishing me yet to deal with Mr. Secretary, 
and that we would jointly write unto Sir Amyas and 
Sir Drury to sound their dispositions, aiming still at 
this, that it might be so done as the blame might be 
removed from herself; and tho' I had always before 
refused to meddle therein, upon sundrie her Majesty's 
former motions, as a thing I utterly condemned, yet 
was I content, as I told her for her satisfying, to let 
Sir Amyas understand what shee expected at his hands, 
albeit I did beforehand assure myself it should be so 
much labour lost, knowing the wisdome and integrity 
of the gentleman, who, I thought, would not do an un¬ 
lawful act for any respect in the world. But finding 
her Majesty desirous to have him sounded in this be¬ 
half, I departed from her Majestie w 1 promise to sig- 
nifie so much unto Mr. Secretary, and that we would 

1 See Appendix to Robertson’s Histwy , No. 52. 

2 Sloane Collection, No. 3199, p. 322 or 105. 


MARY STUART 


213 


both acquaint Sir Amias with this her pleasure; and 
here repeating unto me again that she would have the 
matter closely handled, because of her danger, I pro¬ 
mised to use it as secretly as I could, and so for that 
time departed.” 

Here we must interrupt Davidson’s narrative to 
introduce a passage from a letter sent by her Majesty 
to Sir Amias Paulet, who, with Sir Drew Drury, had 
the custody of the imprisoned Queen of Scots : 

To my loving Amias. 

“ Amias, my most faithful and careful servant, 
God reward thee treblefold in the double for the most 
troublesome charge so well discharged. If you knew, 
my Amias, how kindly, beside most dutifully, my 
grateful heart accepts and praiseth your spotless en¬ 
deavours and faithful actions performed in so danger¬ 
ous and crafty a charge, it would ease your travail and 
rejoice your heart; in which I charge you to carry 
this most instant thought, that I cannot balance in 
any weight of my judgment the value that I prize you 
at,—and suppose no treasure can countervail such a 
faith, and shall condemn me in that fault that yet I 
never committed, if I reward not such desert; yea, 
let me lack when I most need it if I acknowledge 
not such a merit, non omnibus datum.” 1 

Davidson’s narrative proceeds : “ That afternoon 
I repaired to my Lord Chancellor, where I procured the 
1 Tytier’s Inquiry , ii. 320. 


214 


MARY STUART. 


warrant to be sealed; having in my way visited Mr. 
Secretary, and agreed with him about the forme of the 
letter that should be written for her Majesty’s satisfy¬ 
ing to Sir Amyas Paulet and Sir Drury, which at my 
return from my Lord Chancellor was despatched.” 

The letters, notwithstanding the request contained 
in them, have been preserved 

“ We find by a speech lately made by her Majesty, 
that she doth note in you both a lack of that care and 
zeal for her service that she looketh for at your hands, 
in that you have not all this time (of yourselves with¬ 
out other provocation) found out some way to shorten 
the life of the Scots Queen, considering the great peril 
she is hourly subject to, so long as the said Queen 
shall live.” 1 

Davidson proceeds : “ Next morning I received 
a message that it was her Majesty’s pleasure I should 
forbear to go to the Chancellor’s till I had spoken to 
her. Then a second message—I went. She asked, Had 
I been at the Chancellor’s ? I said I had; she demanded 
what needed that haste ? I answered I had done no 
more than she commanded. ‘ But,’ says she,‘ methinks 
the best and safest way for me is to have it otherways 

1 There is added in a postscript: “ I pray you let both this 
and the inclosed be committed to the fire ; as your answer shall 
be, after it has been communicated to her Majesty, for her satis¬ 
faction.” In a subsequent letter: “ I pray you let me know 
what you have done with my letters, because they are not fit to 
be kept, that I may satisfy her Majesty therein, who might other¬ 
wise take offence thereat” (Dr. Mackenzie’s Lives; Freebairn, 
p. 270; Tytier’s Inquiry , vol. ii. p. 321). 


MARY STUART 


2I 5 


handled/ particularising a form that, as she pretended, 
liked her better. I answered that I took the honor¬ 
able and just way to be the best and safest way, if she 
meant to have it done at all; whereto her Majesty, re¬ 
plying nothing for that time, left me. 

“ Two days after, she told me she had been greatly 
troubled by a dream, that the Queen of Scots was exe¬ 
cuted, and that if she had had a sword she would have 
run some one through. I asked her in great earnest 
what she meant, and whether she did not mean to go 
forward with the execution ? Her answer, with a 
solemn oath, was Yes! but it might receive a better 
form, for this casteth the whole burthen upon myself. 
I answered that it was the form which the law re¬ 
quired, and the only form that was to be kept with 
honor and justice. She replied there were wiser men 
than me of a different opinion. 

“ She rose up and left me. 

“ The same afternoon she asked if I had heard 
from Sir Amyas Paulet. I said, No; but in an hour 
or two I got his answer;” which, though not intro¬ 
duced in Davidsons statement, we insert here :— 

“ Your letters of yesterday coming to my hand this 
day, I would not fail, according to your directions, to 
return my answer with all possible speed, which I 
shall deliver unto you with great grief and bitterness 
of mind, in that I am so unhappy, as living to see this 
unhappy day in which I am required, by directions of 
my most gracious sovereign, to do an act which God 
and the law forbiddeth. My goods and life are at her 


2 l6 


MARY STUART. 


Majesty’s disposition, and I am ready to lose them the 
next morrow if it shall please her. But God forbid I 
should make so foul a shipwreck of my conscience, or 
leave so great a blot to my poor posterity, and shed 
blood without law or warrant.” 1 

Davidson’s narrative proceeds: "Next morning I 
showed her the answer, but finding thereby that he 
was grieved with the motion made unto him, offering 
his life and all he had,'but absolutely refusing to be 
an instrument in any such action as was not war¬ 
ranted in honor or justice, she fell into terms of 
offence, complaining of the daintiness, and as she 
termed it perjury, of him and others, who, contrary to 
their oath of association, did cast the burthen upon 
herself. She rose up, and after a turn or two went 
into the gallery, whither I followed her, and after re¬ 
newing her former speech, blaming the niceness of 
those precise fellows, said she would have it well 
enough done without them ; and named one Wingfield, 
who, she assured me, would, with some others, under¬ 
take it, which gave me occasion to show to her Majesty 
how dishonorable in my poore opinion any such 
course would be, and how far off she would be from 
shunning the blame and stayne thereof. 

“ Next time I saw her, she said it was more than 
time this matter were dispatched, swearing a great 
oath that it was a shame for them all it was not 
already done; and thereupon spoke to me to have a 

1 Dr. Mackenzie’s Lives , p. 273 ; Tytier’s Inquiry , vol. ii. p. 


323 . 


MARY STUART. 


217 


letter written to Sir Panlet for the dispatch thereof. 
I answered there was no necessity, as I thought, of 
such a letter, the warrant being so general, and suffi¬ 
cient as it was. Her Majesty replied little else, but 
that she thought Sir Paulet would look for it.” 

Then the warrant was despatched, the deed done? 
and Elizabeth hypocritically wrote to Mary’s son, King 
James :— 

“ My deeare Brother—I would you knewe (though 
not felt) the extreme dolor that overwhelms my mind 
for that miserable accident which (far contrary to my 
meaninge) hath befalen. I have now sent this kins¬ 
man of mine, whom ere now yt hath pleased yow to 
favor, to instruct yow trewly of that which ys to 
yerksom for my penne to tell yow. I beseche yow 
that, as God and many moe knowe how innocent I 
am in this case, so you will believe me, that yf I had 
bid 1 ought I owld have bid by yt. 2 I am not so bace- 
minded that feare of any livinge creature or prince 
should make me afrayde to do that were just, or don 
to denye the same. I am not of so base a linage, nor 
cary so vile a minde. But, as not to disguise fits not 
a Kinge, so will I never dissemble my actions, but 
cawse them shewe even as I ment them. Thus assur- 
inge yourself of me, that as I knowe this was deserved, 
yet yf I had ment yt I would never laye yt on others’ 
shoulders; no more will I not damnifie myselfe that 
thought yt not. 

“ The circumstance yt may please yow to have of 
1 Directed. 2 Would abide by it. 


2 l8 


MARY STUART. 


this bearer. And for your part, thincke you have not 
in the world a more lovinge kinswoman, nor a more 
deare frend than myself; nor any that will watch 
more carefully to preserve yow and your estate. And 
who shall otherwise perswade you, judge them more 
partiall to others than you. And thus in haste I leave 
to trouble you ; beseechinge God to send yow a longe 
Reign.—The 14th of Feb. 1586. 1 

“ Your most assured lovinge sister and cosin, 

“Elizab. R.” 2 

1 i.e. 1586-7. 2 Ellis, iii. 22. 


MARY STUART. 


219 


CHAPTER XXXI. 

We have now come to the close of the story.—Murray 
won the prize for which he struggled and plotted so long. 
Within three years he was shot down like a dog on the 
streets of Linlithgow. 1 —Lethington fell into Morton’s 
hands, and died in one night of poison. 2 —Kirkcaldy 
was hanged without trial in the face of the sun. 2 — 
Huntly’s time came next. He dropped in the fulness 
of his strength, and expired within an hour in agony 
and horror. 3 —Bothwell lingered long in a Danish 
prison, and became a raving maniac; but he had a 
lucid interval before he died, and he died confessing 
before God that he and the rest were guilty, and Mary 
Stuart innocent. 4 —Morton survived them all. He rose 
to great power, and took Murray’s place as Regent. 
God is long-suffering, but He is just; and the hour of 
justice came at last. Morton died by the axe on the 
scaffold. 5 He confessed; but he concealed, equivo¬ 
cated, and paltered with the truth even in confessing. 

1 22d January 1570. 2 May 1573. 3 1576. 

4 April 1576. The authenticity and import of Bothwell’s 

confession has been satisfactorily established by the lamented 

Aytoun in a historical note to his Bothwell, p. 297. 

5 2d June 1581. 


220 


MARY STUART. 


He died as lie had lived. Hoping still to deceive man, 
he passed into the presence of his Maker impiously 
protesting before God that he was one of God’s 
elect. 

Two scenes more, and our task is done. 

After much earthly glory, and a long reign, the 
time came at last wdien the great Queen Elizabeth 
must die. 1 Wealth, grandeur, power which none 
might question,—all were hers. But a cold hand was 
on her heart. The shadow of death was creeping over 
her—slow, very slow, but deepening every hour. 
There was not one left who loved her, or whom she 
could love. Her most trusted servants trembled at 
her passions, and longed for a change. Hume tells us 
she' “ rejected all consolation. She refused food. She 
threw herself on the floor. She remained sullen and 
immovable, feeding her thoughts on her afflictions, and 
declaring her existence an insufferable burden. Few 
words she uttered, and they were all expressive of 
some inward grief which she did not reveal; but 
sighs and groans were the chief vent of her despond¬ 
ency, which discovered her sorrows without assuag¬ 
ing them.” 2 

0 the long and unutterable agony of such a 
time! What is there on earth that could bribe one 
to bear it willingly ? How bitterly she must have 
realised the words addressed to her by Mary Stuart 
on the eve of her execution : “ Think me not pre- 


3d April 1603. 


2 Hume, ii. 103. 


MARY STUART. 


221 


sumptuous, madam, that now, bidding farewell to this 
world, and preparing for a better, I remind you 
that you also must die and account to God for your 
stewardship as well as those who have been sent 
before you.—Your sister and cousin, prisoner of wrong, 
Marie R.” 

“ Ten days and nights Queen Elizabeth lay thus 
upon the carpet; then her voice left her, her senses 
failed, and so she died.” 

Mary Stuart had gone long before, destroyed and 
done to death by this woman; sent to the scaffold in 
a land where she had been wrongfully kept a prisoner, 
to whose law she owed no allegiance, and by virtue of 
a law which was passed to compass her death. On 
her way to execution 1 “ she was met by her old servant 
Andrew Melville. He threw himself on his knees 
before her, wringing his hands in uncontrollable 
agony. ‘ Woe is me/ he cried, ‘ that it should be 
my hard hap to carry back such tidings to Scotland P 
‘Weep not, Melville, my good and faithful servant/ 
she replied, ‘ thou should’st rather rejoice to see the 
end of the long troubles of Mary Stuart. This 
world is vanity and full of sorrows. I am Catholic, 
thou Protestant ; but as there is but one Christ, I 
charge thee in His name to bear witness that I 
die firm to my religion, a true Scotchwoman, and 

1 6th February 1587. She was then in the 46th year of her 


age. 


222 


MARY STUART. 


true to France. Commend me to my dearest and 
most sweet son. Tell him I have done nothing to 
prejudice him in his realm nor to disparage his dig¬ 
nity, and that although I could wish he were of my 
religion, yet if he will live in the fear of God accord¬ 
ing to that in which he hath been nurtured, I doubt 
not he shall do well. Tell him, from my example, 
never to rely too much on human aid, but to seek that 
which is from above. Thus he shall have the blessing 
of God in heaven, as I now give him mine on earth/ 
. . . . ‘ May God forgive them that have thirsted for 
my blood.’ ” x 

She then passed to the scaffold. She surveyed it, 
the block, the axe, the executioners, and spectators 
undauntedly as she advanced. She prayed in Latin, 
in French, and finally in English, to God to pardon 
her sins and forgive her enemies; for Christ’s afflicted 
church, for the peace and prosperity of England and 
of Scotland, for her son, and for Queen Elizabeth. 
The two executioners knelt, and prayed her forgive¬ 
ness. “ I forgive you and all the world with all my 
heart, for I hope this death will give an end to all my 
troubles.” She then knelt down and commended her 
spirit into God’s hands, and the executioners did their 
work. 

The sad tale is told. All the actors have been 
nearly three centuries in their graves; but their story 
shall stir the hearts of men till the world’s end. 


1 Strickland, vii. 485. 


MARY STUART. 


223 


He who ruleth over all, and maketh even the wrath 
of man to praise Him, chose these instruments to work 
out his own wise purposes for his church and people; 
and thus in later times we can sympathise with the 
unfortunate Mary, and happily adopt her banner of 
free opinion, while adhering to those Protestant prin¬ 
ciples which her persecutors sought to enforce in viola¬ 
tion of their spirit. 






. 







/ 






























♦ 










































APPENDIX. 


No. I. 

EXTRACT from Sir Ralph Sadler’s Instructions by Queen 
Elizabeth. —8th August 1559. 

It shall do well to explore the very truth, whether the 
Lord James do mean any enterprise towards the Crown of 
Scotland for himself or no ; and if he do, and the Duke be 
found very cold in his own causes, it shall not be amiss 
to let the Lord James follow his own device therein, without 
dissuading or persuading him anything therein. 


No. II. 

LETTER, the Lord James, Prior of St. Andrews, to the Duke 
of Norfolk. — 8th March 1559. (State Paper Office. 
This has been printed by Mr. Tytler.) 

Please your Grace, after my departing from Berwick I 
safely arrived in Fife, and found my Lord of Arran in St. 
Andrews ready to depart towards my Lord of Huntly in St. 
Johnston (Perth), with whom I departed towards him; and 
after mutual conference has found him to see throughout 
these present matters, and willing to shew himself to the 
furtherance of the same at this present, which, I suppose, he 
testifies by his writings to the Queen’s Majesty, and also to Mr. 

Q 


226 


APPENDIX. 


Cecil, with his own servant, who is also instructed with 
credit. And, if it shall please your Grace, in my opinion 
these writings should he kept in store for all adventures. 
Since my returning from my Lord of Huntly, which was on 
the 1st of this instant, I have been continually travelling in 
the towns here upon the sea-coast, for preparation of victuals 
against the arrival of the commissaries, and also upon the 
preparation of our folks, assuring ourselves of meeting upon 
the day appointed. 

****** 

At Pittenweem, the 8th March 1559 (1560). 

James Stewart. 

EXTEACT from LETTEE, the Lord James to Secretary 
Cecil.— 8th March 1559-60. 

My Lord of Huntly with a great part of the north, as I look 
for, will keep the affixed betwixt my Lord Duke and us; 
whereof I trust you will be certified by his own writing, 
which I would wish were kept in store. 


No. III. 

ADDEESS by the Kirk to Mary ; and her ANSWER— 
25th June 1565. 

The General Assembly of the Kirk of Scotland, just 
before Darnley’s marriage, 1 addressed the Queen in language 
that was obviously meant to be offensive, demanding “that 
the papistical and blasphemous mass, with all Papistrie and 
Idolatrie, be universally suppressed and abolished through the 
haill realme, not only in the subjects, but also in the queen’s 
1 Keith, old edition, p. 541 ; 25th June 1565. 


APPENDIX. 


227 


Majesties awin person, with punishment against all persons 
that shall he deprehendit to offend and transgress the same.” 
The Queen answered, on the same day, 1 that “ she believed 
the religion in which she had been up-hrocht to be weill 
grounded,” hut “ she neither has, in times byepast, nor yet 
means hereafter, to press the conscience of any man, but that 
they may worship God in sic sort as they are persuadit to he 
best.” “ As soon as Parliament holds, that quhilk the three 
Estates agrees upon among themselves, her Majesty shall 
grant the same to them;—and always make them sure that no 
man shall be troublit for using themselves in religion accord¬ 
ing to their conscience.” 


No. IV. 

QUEEN MAEY’S INSTKUCTIONS to her Ambassador, 
sent to Queen Elizabeth, in regard to the Eeligious 
Troubles in France.—December 1562. 

Ze sail impart to oure said gude sustar the unquyet 
thochtis and manifeld cairis quhillds this troublesum tymes 
dois breid unto ws, quhairin the present calamiteis we see be 
so greit, that they cannot wele ressave ony incress, and zit we 
cannot hot feare werss to cum. The desolatioun alreddy 
chansed in that noble realme is lamentable to all men, be 
thai nevir so far strangearis unto it; zea I think very inymeis 
in quhome nator mon worke sum horror or compassioun, 
eyther for pitie, at leist for the examples saik, to see the 
people of ane cuntre, kynsfolk and bretheren, ryn blyndlings 
and hedlong to the distructioun the one of the uther : hot to 
us mon be maist dolorous for the honor and particular inter- 
1 Keith, old edition, p. 40 ; 25th June 1565. 


228 


APPENDIX. 


est we haif tliair. We consider the brader the flamb groweth, 
it sail entangle and endanger all the nychbouris the more : 
and thairfore Christian luif and common charitie requirethe, 
that every one put to his helping hand to quenche the lire. 
The mater is so far gone alreddy, and oure conscience begynnis 
to prik us, that we haif too long forborn to deal in it sa far 
as we micht convenientlie, at leist to assay, gif be our media- 
tioun any gude micht be wrocht. ... It hes bene oure mis¬ 
hap, that the persounis in the warld quha are most deare 
and tendir to ws, is incidently fall in so deid in this querell 
of France, that tliay ar becum as principall parties and on con¬ 
trary sydes ; we ferit that entering once to meddle any wyss 
in it, we culd nocht so justlie hald the balance, nor so indif- 
ferentlie, bot we suld appeir to inclyne moir to the one syde, 
and be that meayne offend the uther; so that how uprichtlie 
so evir oure proceding suld be, we suld thairby hasard the 
losse of sum of oure derest freindis. This preposterous fear 
hes thus long kept ws in suspense: bot now quhen we wey 
on the other part the mater to be so far gone alreddy that it 
mon eytlier end be victorie or ellis be treaty; the victorie 
quhatsoevir it sail be to utlieris, it must to ws be most dolor¬ 
ous, for quhosoevir wyn, oure dearest freindis sail losse, 
having on the one part oure gude suster, and on the uther 
the King oure gude bruther and oure uncles, so that we cannot 
bot abhor to think that we sail be spectatrix of so unplesand 
a bargayne : for avoyding of the quliilk, of necessitie we mon 
turne oure self to the only remedie that remains, to haif the 
mater, gif it be possible, takin up be treaty ; quhairof as nane 
hes bettir caus to be desirous, so gif oure crydet be als gude 
with the parties, as oure affectioun towerdis baith dessins, 
thair can be nane mair lit ane instrument to procure gude 
wayis. Mary, we wald be laith to intervein without the gude 
will and pleasour of baith the partyis :—ze sail thairfore desyre 


APPENDIX ; 


229 


upoun oure behalf to knaw oure said gude susteris disposi- 
tioun, and finding the same conformable, ze sail offer oure 
labouris, credit, and quhatsoevir we may do to see the mater 
amicabillie componit and takin up, to the ressonable and 
honorable contentatioun of baith the parteis. And that we 
will immediatlie deall with the King oure gude brother on the 
uther part, the Quene-mother and oure uncles, and perswade 
thame sa far as we can to apply thair mindis that way : traist- 
ing wele that oure credit and auctorite sail be able to wirk the 
like effect in the myndis of our uncles, in quhome we hope als 
gude inclinatioun and towardness sail be fund to ony gude 
purpos, as in ony uther of there estaitis, quhatsoever hes bene 
to hir reportit to the contrary. 

* * * * * 

God sail sa bless the werk in oure handis, that it sail be 
brocht to a happy issue, how difficill soevir it seme, to oure 
greit comfort, with maire glorie and assurit fame in the eyis 
and earis of the warlde to hir, then any of oure sex can evir 
obtein be weir or force of armes. This office is worthie of 
oure estait and sex, and mair agreable with Christiane religioun 
than to prosequute materis further be violent meanis. 

Ko. v. 

1. 

QUEEN MAKY’S LETTER to Elizabeth, for Justice to her 
Merchants of Wigtoun, plundered in Ireland. 

D. Holyrood , le 2 Juin 1564. 

Kicht excellent, riclit heicli and michtie Princesse, oure 
dearest suster and cousin, in oure maist harty maner we com¬ 
mend ws unto zou. It hes bene laitlie hevelie lamentit to ws 
be oure subjects William Waus, Johnne Martine, and Williame 


230 


APPENDIX. 


Gordoun, mcrcliauntis of our toun of Wigtoun, how in the 
moneth of januar last bipast thair schip, quhairof William 
Carmoke wes maister and William Arnolde shippar, at hir 
returnyng from the Eochell wes be storme of wedder drevin 
to land at zour havin of Carlingfurde in Ireland, quhair 
efter thay had awaittit on the wyndis be the space of twelf 
dayes, being readie to depart towert this oure realme, and 
lukand for na kynd of hostilitie or displeasure of ony of zour 
subjects; hTevirtheles Oneill and Fardarroch Makneyshe, 
inhabitantes of Irland, accumpanyt with thre or four hun- 
dreth personis or thairby, come to the said havin and under 
silence of nyclit violentlie and per force, enterit in the schip, 
reft and spuilzeit the wynis, irne, and haill merchandice being 
thairin, brak hir in pecis, and left not the pure mariners 
samekle as thair cletliing ;—as a testimonial!, of the comestable 
and bailies of zour toun of Carlingfurde mair largelie will 
testifie. 

And seing the pure men awnaris of the saidis schip and 
guidis be this fact utterlie wrakkit and heryt, we ar movit, 
dearest suster, to wrait this present unto zou, desiring and 
praying zou, sen the committares of this attemptat are sic as 
oure pure subjectz can not enter with in proceesse, and zit 
the deid of it self being sa schamefull unhonest and notorius, 
that thairfore ze will command zour deputy or uthers berand 
charge of zou in Irland, to caus spedie restitutioun and redress 
be maid to the puir men of thair schip and guidis, according 
to the treateis of pease and thair necessitie, quhairin as ze 
will report merite of God, sa may ze be wele assurit that we 
salhave the semblable regard to the sutis of zour subjectz fal- 
land in the like miserie, as occasioun salbe offerit. 

And thus richt excellent, richt heich and michtie Prin- 
cesse, our dearest suster and cousin, we commit zou to the 
protectioun of God. 


APPENDIX. 


231 


Gevin under oure signet at our palace of Halyrudehous, the 
secund day of junii, and of our regnne the twenty twa zeir, 
1564.—Zour richt gude sister and cusignes Marie E. 

Au. dos .—To the richt excellent, richt 
heich and michty Princesse, oure 
dearest suster and cousin, the 
Quene of England. 


2 . 

QUEEN MAEY’S LETTEE to Queen Elizabeth for Justice 
to her Merchants of Aberdeen, robbed by English Pirates. 

De Struthers , le 7 fevrier 1564-5. 

Eicht Excellent, Eicht heich and michtie Princesse our 
dearest suster and cousin, we grete zou wele. At the suppli- 
catioun of oure loving subjectis Walter Brechin and Andro 
Brechin brethir, marchandis of oure toun of Abirdene, we 
wrait from thence unto zou in august bypast, how inhumanlie 
and cruellie thay war intreatit be Anthony Curteney and 
uthers zour subjectis, by way of piracie, thair haill guidis 
spuilzeit fra thame, and thay all desolate sett on land in 
Bertangze as thay war returnand fra the Bochell towert this 
oure realme in december past ane zeir. And in prosequu- 
tioun of redresse, they togidder did remane in zour realme a 
lang seasoun, like as this Walter hes continewallie, sen oure 
above namyt letters war derect to zou in his favouris. Sum 
decretis hes he obtenit, but na maner of executioun or end: 
for howsone that evir the decrete is pronuncit, sa sone dois 
the gilty personis mak appellatiounis to heighar judgeis, and 
quhen as the puir man eftir his langsum and coistlie sute dois 
lippin for ready executioun, na thing findis he bot a new pane 


232 


APPENDIX. 


to enter in, drevin from terme to terme, quhilk finalie, as dis- 
parit to get ony recompanse lie most constrenitlie reteir him¬ 
self hamewart rather nor to contract further dett for mainte¬ 
nance of ye pley. 

And thairfore weying and persaving this caise, and find¬ 
ing it sic a mater as apperandlie may he jugeit with far less 
circumstance nor is usit, we thocht it verie convenient thus 
of new to wrait to zou to put yis lamentable complaint of 
our puir subjectis in zour recent memorie, and thair-withall 
ernestlie and effectuislie to pray zou that ze will gif scharp 
charge and directioun unto zour justiciers before quhom the 
mater dependis, to mak haisty despatch and end of ye samyn, 
as justice and equitie requiris, and that the decretis gevin 
may tak sic gude executioun as the puir men may think thair 
expenses maid in prosequutioun of thair caus, wele bestowit. 
Heirin, dearest suster, as ze sail do a werk acceptable unto 
God, sa sail ze mak ws yairby oblist to tak the like cair and 
schaw the semblable favour and benivolence to the sutes of 
zour subjectis depending or that heirefter salhappin to be per- 
sewit within our realm. And thus richt excellent, richt heich 
and michtie Princess, our richt deare suster and cousin we 
commit zou to the tuition of God almichtie. 

Gevin under oure signet, at the Struther, ye sevint day of 
februare, and of oure regnne the twenty thre zeir, 1564.— 
Zour richt gude suster and cusignes Marie R. 

Au. dos .—To the richt excellent, richt 
heich and michtie Princesse, oure 
dearest suster and cousyn, the 
Quene of England. 


APPENDIX. 


233 


No. YI. 

LETTER, Mr. Randolph to Queen Elizabeth, as to Mary’s 
Secret Marriage to Darnley, dated 16th. July 1565. (From 
the original in State Paper Office, vol. x. No. 78.) 

May it please yo r Ma tie * 

In a matter whearof I had no greate certayntie I wrote to 
S r Nicolas Throkmorton as then I was informed, desyeringe 
him to let yo r Ma tie knowe the same, w cl1 nowe I have tried 
that then it was falce, but nowe truste that I maye write it 
w th better assurance. Upon Mondaye laste the ix of this 
instante, the Q. was maried secretlie in her owne palace to 
the L. Darlie, not above vij persones present, and went that 
daye to their bedde to the L. Setons howse (this is knowne 
by one of the Prestes that were present at the Masse). If 
this be trewe yo r Ma tie seethe howe her promes is keapte, 
and by this yo r Ma tie may measure the rest of her doynges ; 
and unfaynedlie I do believe that yo r Ma tie shall finde mo 
fayer wordes then good meaninge. 

I will not trouble yo r Ma tie w th the answer of that w ch 
laste I receaved from yo r highnes, but have written the same 
to Mr. Secretarie, and also what is desyered at yo r Ma tes 
handes by such here as are moste at yo r Ma tes divotion, w ch 
I dowte not but shall greatlie tende to the honour of God, 
and yo r Ma tes renoune for ever. At Edenbourge the xvi of 
July 1565. 

Yo r Ma tes most humble and obbedient servant 

Tho. Randolphs 

To the quens Ma tie 

my sovereigne. 


234 


APPENDIX. 


No. VII. 

LETTER, Queen Elizabeth to Mary Stuart. (State Paper 
Office—Royal Letters, Scotland, vol. ii. Printed by Count 
Labanoff, vii. 58.) 

Le 29 Octobre 1565. 

Observant, madame, que de partout j’entends que quel- 
ques accidentz advenus entre nous deux nagueres, ont (en 
l’opinion des regardantz) esbranles l’amitie entre nous deux ; 
et cy mon jugement, il me semble, a este incite par voz dd- 
portementz en mon endroict, tellement que, s’il n’y a meilleur 
ordre mis en noz querelles, tout le monde croira que nous 
sommes separez de notre lien d’amitie. Et, quant a moy, je 
ne puis croire ny ay raison de m’induire a esperer bonne fin 
de cette affaire, si non par quelques uns deputez de par nous 
deux a ouir toutes les occasions de cette ingratitude, et que 
de votre part soyez contente d’en faire quelque bonneste et 
honorable satisfaction, et de mon costd je n’y fauldray point; 
tant en ay-je escript, pour avoir regue tant de vos lettres tres 
amiables, et ayant entendu dernierement par Mauvissiere la 
grande envie que semblez avoir de mon amitffi accoutumee, et 
aussy ay donne charge a Randall de vous faire quelques offres 
que je vous mande, si ainsy vous plaira de les accepter d’aussy 
bon cueur que je les vous prdsente. Aussy je luy ay declard 
tout au long le discours entre moy et ung de voz subjectz, 1 
lequel, j’espere, vous contentera, soubhaitant que voz oreilles 
en eussent este juges pour en entendre et l’lionneur et l’affec- 
tion que je monstroit en votre endroict, tout au rebours de ce 
qu’on diet, que je defendois voz mauvais subjectz contre vous; 
laquelle chose se tiendra tousjours tres eloignee de mon cueur, 
estant trop grande ignominie pour une princesse a souffrir, 


Le Comte de Murray qui etait venu reclamer sa protection. 


APPENDIX. 


235 


non que & faire ; soubhaitant alors qu’on me esclut du rang 
des princes comme estant. indigne d’y tenir lieu. Et, en ceste 
opinion, je prieray le Createur de vous mettre au cueur tous- 
jours ce qui vous sera le mieulx a faire, avec mes cordialles 
recommandations k vous, ma bonne soeur. — 29 e Octobre 
1565. 

Yotre tr&s fidelle bonne soeur et cousine, 

Elisabeth. 


No. VIII. 

Sir William Drury to Sir William Cecil —16tb February 
1565-6—as to Mary’s fruitless efforts, seconded by Darn- 
ley, to induce Bothwell and others to go with them to 
Mass ; and as to Bothwell’s Marriage to the Earl of 
Huntly’s Sister, which was only a few days before Biccio’s 
Murder. (From original in British Museum, Calig. b. x. 
382.) 

The quene bothe by her selfife @ by others used greate 
perswatyons to dyversse off her nobelytye to heare masse 
w th her, att the reseyte off the Frenche order by her husband, 
w ch they refusyd her,—as thearles off huteley, Moorton, Marre, 
bothewell, @ others—therle bodewells refusyng was most 
marvelyd att, and judgyd to be off the quene woorste taken ;— 
he schall as to-moroe marry a syster off therle of hutleys, 
a proper @ a vartuos jentyllwoman, @ a protestante, w ch w th 
thearle her brother’s parswatyons to hym was the cause of 
hys denyyng off ytt (the mass), the quene sayd thus to 
therle of hutley, my lord goe w th me to masse, your father 
was & your mother ys off a good relygyon, your enymyes 
are off the contrary, I have restored you to lybertye @ to 
the benyfyte off your lyvyng, goe with me'; butt he refusyd 


236 


APPENDIX. 


ytt, saying, Madam, I wyle yn your servyse spend my lyffe 
land @ goodes, butt to goe to the masse I wyle nott; I 
pray you off pardon; ytt ys agaynste God @ myne con- 
tyense—hys mother had viij or x days daly before delte 
w th hym, whoo ys a greate papyste, & moche geven to 
wyche crafftes, parswadyng hym to heare masse as that day, 
affermyng unto hym thatt ytt ys the best meanes for hym to 
attayne to hys sute w ch sche hathe sythense hys lybertye ben 
a swter for, as fully and amplely to be restored unto hys 
landes, w ct yette he ys nott, althoghe he reseyvythe the be- 
nyfyte off ytt—for hys forfayture ys not by law yette can- 
selyd, nor he by law yett restored, butt all thys coulde nott 
move hym. The lord Darnley would have schoote the doore 
upon the lord roberte, lord Flemyng, oglebe @ others, butt 
they woold nott yeld to ytt—the quene tooke therle bode- 
well by the hand, the rather to procure hym yn. the lord 
of ledyngton refusyd also, so thatt sche was accompanyd 
butt w th therles. of athell, lenoxe, cassells, @ monggomberye, 
@ the lord setone. The Imbasador’s trayne dyd all goe to 
the masse butt mounsiur de clearemont; all that refusyd the 
masse wente to heare Knokes hys sermonde, wereatt was a 
greatter audyense @ espetyally off the nobelytye, then was 
sythense the deperture off the banysched Lordes ; the great- 
test parte of hys sermond was Inveyng agaynste the masse. 


No. IX. 

MARY STUART’S ACCOUNT of Riccio’s Murder, in a 
Letter to the Archbishop of Glasgow. —2d April 1566. 

D'Edimbourg, le 2 avril 1566. 
Maist reverend fadir, we greit you weill. We received 


APPENDIX, 


237 


your depesche sent by captain Mure; and sensyne sindrie 
noveUes having occurrit, knowing not what bruit is passed 
thereupon, we thought necessary to make you some discourse 
thereof. It is not unknown to you how our Parliament was 
appointed to the 12th of this instant moneth of March, to 
whilk these that were our rebels and fugitives in England war 
summoned, to have themselves forfeited. The day thereof 
approaching, w T e required the King our husband to assist 
with us in passing thereto ; who, as we are assured, being per- 
swaded by our rebels that were fugitive, with the advice and 
fortification of the earl of Morton, lords Rutliven and Lindsay, 
their assistars and complices, wha was with us in company, 
by their suggestion refused to pass with us thereto, as we 
suppone because of his facility, and subtile means of the 
lords foresaid, he condescended to advance the pretended reli¬ 
gion publisht here, to put the rebels in their roumes and 
possessions which they had of before, and but our knawledge 
grant to them a remit of all their trespassess. The saids rebels 
and their favorars promittit they should forder him to the 
crown matrimoniall, give him the succession thereof, and ware 
their lives in all his affairs ; and if any would usurp contrary 
to his authority, they should defend the samyne to their 
uttermost power, not excepting our own person. Whilks 
subtil factions being unknown to us, hoping no inconvenience 
to have been devised or succeeded, we, accompanied with our 
nobility for the time, past to the Tolbuith of Edinburgh for 
holding of our Parlament upon the 7th day of this instant— 
elected the Lords Articulars. The spirituall estate being 
placed therein in the ancient maner, tending to have done 
some good anent restoring the auld religion, and to have pro¬ 
ceeded against our rebels according to their demerits. Whilk 
for such occasions as are notourly known, we thought neces- 
sarly should be punislit, likeas of truth the crimes committed 


238 


APPENDIX. 


by them being notified and made patent in face of our estates 
in Parliament assembled, were thought and reputed of such 
weightiness, that they deserved forfaltour therethrow, and 
the samyne being voted and concluded ; Upon the 9th day of 
March instant, we being at even about seven hours, in our 
cabinet at our supper, sociated with our sister the countess of 
Argyle, our brother the commendator of Halyrudhouse, laird 
of Creich, Arthur Erskin, and certain others our domestick 
servitors, in quiet maner, especially by reason of our evill dis¬ 
positions being counsell’d to sustean ourselves with flesh, 
having also then past almost to the end of seven moneths in 
our birth; the King our husband came to us in our cabinet— 
placed him beside us at our supper. The earl of Morton and 
lord Lindsay with their assistars bo din in warlick maner, to 
the number of eight score persons or thereby, kept and occu¬ 
pied the whole entry of our palace of Halyrudhouse, so that 
as they believed it was not possible to any person to escape 
forth of the same. In that mean time the lord Euthven, bodin 
in like maner, with his complices, took entry perforce in our 
cabinet, and there seeing our secretary David Eiccio among 
others our servants, declared he had to speak with him. In 
this instant we required the King our husband if he knew 
any thing of that enterprise ? who denyed the samyne. Also 
we commanded the lord Euthven, under the pain of treason 
to avoyd him forth of our presence : declaring we should ex- 
hibite the said David before the Lords of Parliament, to be 
punisht if any sorte he had offended. Notwithstanding, the 
said lord Euthven perforce invadit him in our presence (he 
then for refuge took safeguard, having retired him behind our 
back) and with his complices cast down our table upon our¬ 
self, put violent hands in him, struck him over our shoulders 
with whinzeards, one part of them standing before our face 
with bended daggs, most cruelly took him forth of our cabinet, 


APPENDIX. 


239 


and at the entry of our chamber give him fifty-six strokes with 
whinzeards and swords. In doing whereof, we were not only 
struck with great dreadour, but also by sundrie considerations 
was most justly induced to take extream fear of our life. 
After this deed immediately, the said lord Buthven coming 
again in our presence, declared how they and their complices 
foresaids were highly offended with our proceedings and 
tyranny, which was not to them tolerable ; how we was abused 
by the said David, whom they had actually put to death, 
namely in taking his counsell for maintenance of the ancient 
religion, debarring of the lords which were fugitive, and enter¬ 
taining of amity with foreign princes and nations with whom 
we were confederate; putting also upon council the lords 
Bothwell and Huntly who were traitors, and w 7 ith whom he 
associated himself; That the lords banisht in England were 
the morne to resort toward us, and would take plain part 
with them in our contrary ; and that the King was willing to 
remit them their offences. We all this time took no less 
care of ourselves, than for our council and nobility, maintenars 
of our authority being with us in our place for the time; 
to wit, the earls of Huntly, Bothwell, Athole, lords Eleming 
and Livingston, sir James Balfour, and certain others our 
familiar servitors : against whom the enterprise was conspired 
as well as for David ; and namely to have hanged the said sir 
James in cords : Yet, by the providence of God the earls of 
Huntly and Bothwell escaped forth of their chambers in our 
palace, at a back-window, by some cords ; wherein thir con¬ 
spirators took some fear, and thought themselves greatly dis¬ 
appointed in their enterprize. The earl of Athole and sir 
James Balfour by some other means with the lords Fleming 
and Levingston obteined deliverance of their invasion. The 
provost and town of Edinburgh having understood this tumult 
in our palace, caused ring their common bell, came to us in 


240 


APPENDIX. 


great number, and desired to have seen our presence, inter- 
comoned with us, and to have known our welfare, to whom we 
was not permitted to give answer, being extremely bosted by 
thir lords wo in our face declared, if we desired to have 
spoken them, they should cut us in collops and cast us over 
the walls. So this community being commanded by our hus¬ 
band retired them to quietness. 

All that night we were detained in captivity within our 
chamber, not permitting us to have intercomoned scarcely 
with our servant women, nor domestick servitors. Upon the 
morn hereafter, proclamation was made in “our husbands 
name, by our advice ” commanding all prelates and other lords 
convened to Parlament, to retire themselves of our burgh of 
Edinburgh. That haill day we was keeped in that firmance, 
our familiar servitors and guard being debarred from our 
service, and we watched by the committars of thir crimes 
to whom a part of the community of Edinburgh, to the num¬ 
ber of fourscore persons assisted. The Earl of Murray that 
same day at evin, accompanied with the Earl of Eothes, 
Petarro, Grange, tutor of Pitcurr, and others who were with 
him in England, came to them, and seeing our state and 
entertainment was moved with natural affection toward us. 
Upon the morn, he assembled the interprisars of this late 
crime, and such of our rebels as came with him. In their 
council they thought it most expedient we should be warded 
in our castle of Streviling, there to remain while we had 
approved in Parlament all their wicked interprizes, estab¬ 
lish their religion, and given to the King the crown matri- 
moniall, and the haill government of oure realme ; or else, by 
all appearance, firmly purposed to have put us to death or 
detained us in perpetual captivity. To avoyd them of our 
palace with their guard and assistars, the King promised 
to keep us that night in sure guard, and that but compul- 


APPENDIX. 


241 


sion he should cause us in Parlament approve all their con¬ 
spiracies. By this moyen he caused them to retire them of 
our palace. 

This being granted, and the guard commanded to 
serve us in the accustomate manner (the fear and dreadour 
always remained with us), we declared our state to the Kang 
our husband, certifying him how miserably he would be 
handled, in case he permitted thir lords to prevail in our 
contrare ; and how unacceptable it would be to other princes, 
our confederates, in case he altered the religion. By this 
perswasion he was induced to condescend to the purpose 
taken by us, and to retire in our company to Dunbar; which 
we did under night, accompanied with the captain of our 
Guard, Arthur Erskine, and two others only. Of before, we 
being of mind to have gotten ourselves relieved of this deten¬ 
tion, desired, in quiet manner, the Earls of Bothwell and 
Huntly to have prepared some way whereby they might have 
performed the same; who, not doubting therein, at the least 
taking no regard to hazard their lives in that behalf, devised 
that we should have come over the walls of our palace in the 
night upon towes and chairs, which they had in readiness, to 
that effect. 

Soon after our coming to Dunbar, sundry of our nobility, 
zealous of our weill, such as the Earls of Huntly, Bothwell, 
Marshall, Athole, Caithness, bishop of St. Andrews, with his 
kin and friends, Lords Hume, Yester, Sempil, and infinite 
others, assembled to us, by whose advice proclamations being 
made for convening our lieges to attend to us and our service, 
the lords conspirators perceiving the samen, the Earl of Glen- 
cairn, as innocent of this last crime, resorted towards us by 
our tolerance, and hath taken his remission, and sicklike the 
Earl of Rothes. The Earl of Murray and Argyle sent diverse 

Fv 


242 


APPENDIX. 


messages to procure our favour, to whom in likewise, for cer¬ 
tain respects, by advice of our nobility and Council being 
with us, we have granted remission, under condition they 
nowise apply themselves to thir last conspirators, and re¬ 
tire themselves in Argyle during our will, thinking it very 
difficult to have so may bent at once in our contrare, and 
knowing the promises past already betwixt the King and 
them; and our force not sufficient, through inhability of 
our person, to resist the samen, and put the matter in so great 
hazard. 

We remained in Dunbar five days, and after returned to 
Edinburgh well accompanied with our subjects. The last 
conspirators, with their assisters, having removed themselves 
forth of the samen of before, and being presently fugitive from 
our laws, we have caused by our charges their hail fortresses, 
strengths, and houses to be rendered to us; have caused 
make inventar of their goods and geir, and intend farther to 
pursue them with all rigour. Whereunto we are assured to 
have the assistance of our husband, who hath declared to us, 
and in presence of the Lords of our Privy-council, his inno¬ 
cence of this last conspiracy,—how he never counselled, com¬ 
manded, consented, assisted, nor approved the same; thus 
far only he oversaw himself, that at the enticement and per- 
swasion of the late conspirators, he, without our advice or 
knowledge, consented to the bringing home forth of England 
of the Earls of Murray, Glencairn, Eothes, and other persons 
with whom we were offended. This ye will consider by his 
declaration made hereupon, which at his desire hath been 
publish’d at the mercat Crosses of this our realm. Whereof 
with thir presents we thought necessary to send you the 
original. We require you in case of your absence from 
Court, that ye pass thereto with diligence, to declare all our 


APPENDIX. 


243 


proceeding to the King and Queen-mother and our uncle the 
cardinal of Lorrain, to whom we have also written anent the 
premisses. And so we commit you to the protection of the 
Eternal God. 

Of Edinburgh, the second day of April 1566. 

P -&—Autographe : Je vous prie ne faillez incontinant ces 
lettres vues, aller a la Cour, afin que vous puissiez empescher 
les bruits faux d’estre creus ; et faites en un discours k 
l’ambassadeur d’Espagne et autres Strangers. 

Yotre bien bonne maitresse et amie. 

Marie E. 

Au dos .—To the Archbishop of Glasgow. 


No. X. 

EEAGMENTAEY MEMOIE by Mary Stuart as to her 
Marriage with Darnley.— (Translation. Autograph— 
State Paper Office, Mary Queen of Scots, vol. xxi. 
Printed by Count Labanoff.) 

The Countess of Lennox by letters and tokens entreated 
me to marry her son, of the blood of England and Scotland, 
and the nearest after me in succession, Stuart by name, in 
order always to preserve that surname so agreeable to the 
Scotch, of the same religion as myself, and who would respect 
me according to the honour conferred upon him, in that it 
should oblige him. The Earl of Atholl, Lord Lindsay, all the 
Stuarts and Catholics, laid stress upon that. 

The Protestants brought forward Leicester, who, on his 
part, wrote to me and sued me by Eandolph : to which Murray 
pretended to listen, knowing that, although his Queen had 


244 


APPENDIX. 


written to me in his behalf, it was merely to deceive me and 
keep off others. This Leicester himself wrote to me privately, 
through Eandolpli, showing me, on the other hand, how to 
induce her by fear to consent; to wit, by the disturbances in 
Ireland, where I had power at that time, of which she was 
much afraid. 

Murray, on the other hand, secretly endeavoured to legi¬ 
timate himself; and, pretending to love me, would not leave 
me alone, and wished to take charge of all the offices, strong¬ 
holds, and the whole government of the kingdom; and, as 
my lieutenant-general, was so well strengthened that he held 
me in tutelage, and at length proposed to me to cede my 
crown to him and the Earl of Argyll, and to set aside the 
Hamiltons as I had Huntly, which induced me to think of 
consenting to marry, and thereby, if not to please all, at least 
honest people, Catholics, and those of my own name : whereof 
I apprised Atholl, and those who urged me to it, that they 
might ascertain the pleasure of their supporters; and my 
mother-in-law and her husband thereon endeavoured to pro¬ 
cure the restoration of her husband to his honours and estates, 
and under this pretext be enabled to treat of the marriage of 
his son with her. 

Having effected this, he came hither and began to make 
use of his friends and tamper with the others, and especially 
the Earl of Murray, who, thinking that the plan would not 
be carried into effect, and that he could break it off when he 
wished, at first appeared to consent to Lennox, under pretext 
of his name, and in the hope of obtaining his assistance in 
ruining the Hamiltons, whom otherwise he did not dare to 
attack. 

Lennox, in this expectation, sent for his son ; and, in the 
meanwhile, I held a Parliament, at which by common consent, 
I restored them to their estates. The son came, but stealthily, 


APPENDIX. 


245 


inasmuch as Murray, seeing that I was inclined to this match 
in good earnest, procured in England that he should he re¬ 
called by the Queen. 


No. XI. 

CARTEL sent by Bothwell to Arran, with Arran’s 
ANSWER—1559. (Cotton MS., Caligula, B. viii. 329.) 

Eor samekle as being advertist of zo r continual owtrageouse 
menassing me and my assistairs, treu subjectis to ye autorite, 
saying that ze sail expell and constrayn us to depart and laif 
this our natyve realme of Scotland, but ony sufficient cause 
quhy, gif it my* 1 ly in zo r handes. And forthir persaving 
zo r intollerable and oppin malyce in cerseing my body to ye 
disponing thairof, and spulzeing my hous of guddes and evi¬ 
dences to my greit damaige, and persevereis in zo r said evill 
mynd (having respect unto my hono r ) I am compellit to seise 
remeid be quhatsumever way I can for defense of ye samyn. 
And sen it becummeis welle y t na saikles may incur skay 1 for 
uthers injuries and demerittis, bot rathar be decydit w* singu- 
leyr combat according unto ye law of armis, that ye offendar 
may be best knawin and suffer as appartenis ; heirfor knawing 
zou Erie of Arrane to be ye said principall injurar and men- 
assar bay* be word and deid, desyris to wyt gif ze haif ony 
pticuleir quarrell towart me or ony of myn quhair of ze wald 
be revengit, that ze will declayr it, and ane day convenient to 
be appointit in competent place, I am content to defend ye 
said quarrell to my hono r befoir Tranche and Scottyshe, boding 
as ze pleis on horse or fuitt, thair to be tryit betwix our bodies 
unto ye dey 1 ; Quhen God willing I sail offer me to preif 
that ze haif no 1 doyn zo r deutye to ye autorite as ane noble 
man awcht, nor zet to me in ye causes above wryttin. And 


246 


APPENDIX ; 


zo r ansueir heyrupon yat we ma proceid efter the forme and 
ordo r to be observit in sic caces. 

At crey*toun ye vij day of November 1559. 

Boithuell. 

In dorso —Cartel sent to the Er. of Ar. by the Erie Bothewell 
w* h ans. 

For ansuier of your cartell I haif never menassit ony treu 
subjectes to the authorite, bot gif ony wald chaiss thaim out 
of thair native country I wald at my power meynteyn thayme 
thairin ; bot of that number I neyther esteym zou Erie Both- 
well nor zour assistairis, nor zit am accustumyt to use men- 
assing. bot sail God willing be hable to put to executioun 
the thing I speik, as for that thing I haif doun unto zour self 
or house it is mekle les nor the injury done be zou to my 
frenyd deservit. as to the quarrell It is noto r and sik ane 
deid as efter the sam ze haif na place to seik the combat of 
ony man of hono r undefamyt, for It is in the self Bather the 
deid of ane volene to ombesett ane gentlemannis gayt and 
Bub him of his guddis, than of ane man of hono r as ze call 
zour self, quhilk ze haif lasthely desteymit in that behalf. As 
to the revenging, gif ze think it be no* sufficientlye Bevengit 
alreaddy be ze assmyt the next tym I cum that way the 
thing Is left undoyne now salbe achevit. And quhen soevir 
ze may recover the Name of ane honest man, quhilk be your 
lasthe deid ze haif lost, I sail ansueirr zou as I awtht, bot 
no* befoir Eranche quhom ze prepon in Bank to scottis. for 
thair is no tranche man in this realme w* quhais judgement I 
will haif to do, quhair ze mak mentioun that I haif no* doyn 
my deutye to the authorite as ane noble man awtht, Albeit 
I am not bund to gif zou accompt zit will I meynteyn that 
tharin ze haif falslie leyt. James, Erle of Arran. 


APPENDIX. 


247 


No. XII. 

SUMMONS of TREASON against James, Earl of 
Bothwell.— 2d May 1565. 1 

[This was two months before Mary’s marriage to Darnley, 
and two years before Bothwell actually seized the Queen and 
carried her as a prisoner to Dunbar.] 

Marie by the grace of God Quene of Scottis, &c.—Quhair 
it is of veritie, that upon the 26 day of the monethe of 
Marche or thairby, in the year of God 1562 zeiris, James 
Erie Bothwile Lord Halis and Admirall of our realme, 
being laitlie reconciliat and agreit with James Erie of Arrane, 
ypone sic debatis and contraverseis as had happinnit amangis 
thame of befoir, precogitat, consavit and conspyrit the treason- 
abill purpos and interpryise heireftir mentionat aganis our 
nobill persoune, and did that wes in him to bring the samin 
to pass, and to have persuadit our said cousing to have assistit 
and tane parte with him in his maist treasonabill interpryse, 
vsand sik wordis arguments and persuasions as he thocht 
mycht best serue for the purpoise : That is To say, The said 
James Erie Boithwill, the day foirsaid proponit and earnestlie 
desyrit our said cousing to consert and assist to him in this 
manner, saying “ I knaw ze haif innemies in Court that 
stoppis zow of zour desyre at the Quenis Mat eis hand, quha 
will nevir ceise quhill thai have destroyit zow and zour 
faderis House ; bot and ze will vse my counsale I sail fynd 
the meyne to eschewe the haill wrek thairof, and bring zow 
to zour purpoise. And this way sail we wirk. Howsone the 
Quenis Maiestie cumis vpone the south syde of the Watter of 
Eorth quhilk wilbe schortlie eftir Pasche, we sail prowyde 


1 Pitcairn, i. 462. 


248 


APPENDIX. 


and keip in cumpany samony freindis seruandis and part- 
takaris, as salbe abill, quhenne hir Ma tie is at the Hunting 
vpone the feildis, or vtherways passand hir time mirralie, to 
execute this purpose That is to say, we sail cutt in pecis 
samony of hir counsalouris seruandis or vtheris that will 
make ws. resistance, and sail tak hirself with us captive and 
haif hir to the Castell of Dumbertane, and thair keep hir 
surelie, or vthirwise demayne hir persoun at zour plesour 
quhill scho aggre to quhatsumeuir thing ze sail desyre!”— 
Saying also, “ This thing is maist easie to be done qulienne 
hir Ma tie salbe drawin furth of the Palice of Halyrudehouse 
to pass hir tyme vpoune the feildis, in quiet manner. And 
gif ze tak ony feir to execute this enterpryse, be reasoune of 
the hasard or difficulty thairof ze sail onlye bot stand and 
behald me put all thingis foirsaid to execution.” 

Bothwell failed to appear in answer to this summons, fled 
to France, and was outlawed 2d May 1565. 


Ho. XIII. 

EXTBACTS.— Bandolph to Cecil, 15th March 1565. 
(State Paper Office, Scotland, x. Ho. 27.) 

* * * * 

I thynke good to lett y r h. understonde that thys Q. is daylie 
in hande w th me to knowe howe sone I judge that the q. 
Ma tie will tayke some resolution what waye she intendeth to 
conclude in those thinges that so longe tyme have byne in 
communication 


APPENDIX. 


249 


Of my L. Botliwels arrivall I dowte not but yo r ho r 1 is ad¬ 
vertised, for so I desyred my L. of Bedforde as bis L. bad 
occasion to sende. The q. nowe altogether myslykethe bis 
home cominge w th owte her g. 2 licence She hatbe alreddie 
sente a sergante of armes to somonde bym to under lye the 
law, w ch yf be refuse to do be shalbe pronounced rebell Be¬ 
cause that yt is thoughte that be will leave tbys countrie 
agayne, and perchance for a tyme seeke some refuge in Eng- 
lande, I am requyred to write unto yo r h. to be a meane unto 
the q. Ma tie that be may have no receatew th inher Ma ties reaulme, 
and that warninge tberof maye be geven to the Q. Ma ties 
officers, as I have allreddie wrytten to my L. of Bedforde 
and Sir John Eisher For as myche also as my L. of Both- 
well is charged by Murraye y t came late owte of F. to have 
spoken dyvers unbonorable wordes agaynste tbys Q., and also 
to have threatened the Earle of Murraye and L. of Lid. that 
be wolde be the deatbe of them botbe at bis retorne into 
Scotlande, and y* Murraye callethe to wytnes of these wordes 
one Dandie pringle dwelling besides Newcastle, my L. of 
Murraye hatbe wrytten bymself and also desyred me to write 
to the said pringle that he come hyther unto hym w th all 
convenient speede, to knowe what he is hable to saye towchinge 
those matters Thys Pringle at that tyme was servant to the 
Earle Bothewell, and hathe promised if he be called to verefie 
the same. 

* * * * 


Your honour. 


Grace’s. 


250 


APPENDIX. 


No. XIY. 

LETTER, The Earl of Morton to Sir John Forster, July 
1566, as to an Accusation made by the King and Both- 
well against Murray, Lethington, and others, as the 
Devisers of the Slaughter of Riccio.—(Extracted from 
original in State Paper Office, Scotland, Elizabeth, vol. 
xii. No. 89.) 

My Lord uppoun advertisement fur 1 out of Scotland frome 
our frendis thair it was writtin that the King and the Erie 
Botliveill was labouring for ane remission to George Douglas 
and was like to obtene the same at the queines grace our 
maisters hand And that the King had said that George 
Douglas had promyse at his hame cuming to declair that 
y e Erie of Murray, the secretar, and sum otheris quhome 
y e Quenis g 1 knew not of, war y e devysaris and purpos mak- 
aris of y e slaucliter of Davye. And y e erle Bothveill send¬ 
ing ane servant of his to zour L. for ane lycence to send ane 
of his to the Newcastill for payment of silver, quhair nane was 
awind, gaif me occasion to suspectt that to be of trewth 
quhilk was wrytten to me of befoir, quhair uppon I wratt my 
oppinionn to zo L. how that I tho 1 it metar that George 
should have bene stayit for ane quhile nor suffrit to pas in 
Scotland to mak ony report uppon the men quha war y e q 
ma ties of Inglandes maist speciall frendes that her hignes had 
in Scotland Sen that tyme I have laborit to knaw the trewth 
of that mater, and am advertist fur 1 of Scotland that y e King 
and y e Erie Boithveill had laborit for George Douglas, bot now 
was not liklie to speid as it was first written to me, for y e 
quenis Ma te lykit nae thing thair desyir, albeit the Kyng had 
promysit in George Douglas name as is afore written, zit is 
1 Grace. 


APPENDIX. 


2 5 * 

tho 1 that he spak the same on his awin Inventioun whrnt ony 
sic advertismet send to him he George Douglas, athir upon 
hatret and malice borne be him against y e Erie of Murray and 
y e secretar, or ellis to draw y e suspicioun of him self that he 
was not the devysir of that mater, quhilk he will nevir be 
able to do, for George Douglas will plainly testifie in his pre¬ 
sence that the king was in y e devyse of y e slaughter, the place 
quhair it suld be done, and y e maner of y e doing thairof, and 
causit him to perswaid my Lord Euthven, that deid is, to assist 
and take part w 1 y e king in that Actiounn ; and I have travellit 
w* George my self quha awtterlie denyis that ever he spake 
or send ony sic wourde to y e King as he has reportit of him, 
and offres to defend it w t his body agains ony that will allege 
it, for it was nevir his menyng nor intent to sklander the 
erle of Murray, .the secretar, nor any othir nobill man for that 
deid, but wold justifie thame to be innocent thairof. 


No. XV. 

The Will of the Earl of Murray, dated 2d April 1567, 
appoints Dame Agnes Keith (his wife), John Earl of Mar, 
John Wishart of Petairo, William Douglas of Lochleven, and 
William Kirkcaldy of Grange, his executors ; and “ Marie, 
Queen of Scots, overishwoman (umpire) of my testament, to 
see all things handled and ruled for the weill of my dochter.” 
(Printed by the Bannatyne Club, Morton Papers, vol. i. p. 19.) 


252 


APPENDIX. 


No. XYI. 

1 . 

PKIVY COUNCIL of SCOTLAND, 8th October 1566, to the 
Queen-Mother of France.— (Chalmers, ii. 189 ; Keith, 
347.) 

About ten or twelve days ago, the queen at our request 
came to this town of Lisleburgh 1 to give her orders about some 
affairs of state, which without her personal presence could 
not be got dispatched. Her majesty was desirous the king 
should have corned along with her; but because he liked to 
remain at Stirling and wait her return thither, she left him 
there, with intention to go towards him again, in five or six 
days. Meantime, while the queen was absent, the Earl of 
Lennox his father came to visit him at Stirling; and having 
remained with him two or three days, he went his way again 
to Glasgow, the ordinary place of his abode. From Glasgow 
my Lord Lennox wrote to the queen, and acquainted her 
majesty, that although formerly both by letters and messages, 
and now also by communication with his son, he had en¬ 
deavoured to divert him from an enterprize he had in view, he 
nevertheless had not the interest to make him alter his mind. 
This project, he tells the queen, was to retire out of the 
kingdom beyond sea; and for this purpose he had just then 
a ship lying ready. The Earl of Lennox’s letter came to 
the queens hand on St. Michael’s day (29th September) and 
her majesty was pleased to impart the same incontinent to the 
Lords of her Council, in order to receive advice thereupon. 
And if her majesty was surprised by this advertisement from 
1 Edinburgh. 


APPENDIX, 


2 53 


the Earl of Lennox, these Lords were no less astonished to 
understand that the king, who may justly esteem himself 
happy upon account of the honour the queen has been pleased 
to confer upon him, and whose chief aim should be to render 
himself grateful for her bounty, and behave himself honour¬ 
ably and dutifully towards her, should entertain any thought 
of departing after so strange a manner out of her presence ; 
nor was it possible for them to form a conjecture from whence 
such an imagination could take its rise. Their Lordships 
therefore took a resolution to talk with the king, that they 
might learn from himself the occasion of this hasty delibera¬ 
tion of his (if any such he had), and likewise that they might 
thereby be enabled to advise her majesty after what manner 
she should comport herself in this conjuncture. The same 
evening the King came to Edinburgh, but made some diffi¬ 
culty to enter into the palace, by reason that three or four 
Lords were at that time present with the queen, and peremp¬ 
torily insisted that they might be gone before he would 
condescend to come in, which deportment appeared to be 
abundantly unreasonable since they were three of the greatest 
lords in the kingdom ; and that those Kings who by their 
own birth were sovereigns of the realm, have never acted in 
that manner towards the nobility. The queen however 
received this behaviour as decently as was possible, and 
condescended so far as to meet the King without the palace, 
and so conducted him into her own apartment, where he 
remained all night; and then her majesty entered calmly 
with him upon the subject of his going abroad, that she 
might understand from himself the occasion of such a resolu¬ 
tion. But he would by no means give or acknowledge that 
he had any occasion offered him of discontent. The Lords of 
Council being acquainted early next morning that the King 
was just a going to return to Stirling, they repaired to the 


254 


APPENDIX . 


queen’s apartment; and no other person being present except 
their Lordships and Mons. du Croc, whom they prayed to 
assist with them, as being here on the part of your majesty, 
the occasion of their meeting together was then with all 
humility and reverence due to their majesties, proposed ; 
namely, to understand from the King, whether, according to 
advice imparted to the queen by the Earl of Lennox, he had 
formed a resolution to depart by sea out of the realm, and 
upon what ground, and for what end ? That if his resolution 
proceeded from discontent, they were earnest to know what 
persons had afforded an occasion for the same ? that if he 
could complain of any of the subjects of the realm, be they of 
what quality soever, the fault should be immediately repaired 
to his satisfaction. And here we did remonstrate to him, that 
his own honour, the queen’s honour, the honour of us all, 
were concerned ; for if without just occasion ministered, he 
would retire from the place he had received so much honour 
and abandon the society of her to whom he is so far obliged, 
that in order to advance him she has humbled herself, and from 
being his sovereign had surrendered herself to be his wife : if 
he should act in this sort, the whole world would blame him 
as ingrate, regardless of the friendship the queen bare him, 
and utterly unworthy to possess the place to which she had 
exalted him. On the other hand, that if any just occasion 
had been given him, it behoved the same to be very im¬ 
portant ; since it inclined him to relinquish so beautiful a 
queen and noble realm : and the same must have been afforded 
him either by the queen herself, or by us her ministers. As 
for us, we professed ourselves ready to do him all the justice 
he could demand; and for her majesty, so far was she from 
ministering to him occasion of discontent, that on the contrary 
he had all the reason in the world to thank God for giving 
him so wise and virtuous a person, as she showed herself in 


APPENDIX. 


2 55 


all her actions. Then her Majesty was pleased to enter into 
the discourse, and spoke affectionately to him, beseeching him 
that seeing he would not open his mind in private to 
her the last night, according to her most earnest request, 
he would at least be pleased to declare before these lords, where 
she had offended him in anything; she likewise said, that 
she had a clear conscience that in all her life she had done no 
action which could anyway prejudice either his or her own 
honour; but nevertheless that as she might perhaps have 
given him offence without design, she was willing to make 
amends as far as he should require ; and therefore prayed 
him not to dissemble the occasion of his displeasure, if any 
he had, nor to spare her in the least matter. But tho’ the 
queen and all others that were present, together with Mons. 
du Croc, used all the interest they were able, to persuade him 
to open his mind ; yet he would not at all own that he in¬ 
tended any voyage, or had any discontent; and declared 
freely that the Queen had given him no occasion for any : 
whereupon he took leave of her majesty and went his way : 
so that we were all of opinion that this was but a false alarm 
the Earl of Lennox was willing to give her majesty. Never¬ 
theless by a letter which the King has since wrote to the 
queen in a sort of disguised stile, it appears that he still has 
it in his head to leave the Kingdom, and there is advertise¬ 
ment otherwise that he is secretly preparing to be gone :—of 
all which, and what passed betwixt their majesties and us, 
we could not fail to inform you, and to testify, like as we do 
by these presents, that so far as things could come to our 
knowledge he has no ground of complaint; but on the con¬ 
trary that he has the very best of reason to look upon him¬ 
self as one of the most fortunate princes in Christendom, 
could he but know his own happyness, and make use of the 
good fortune which God has put into his hands. ’Tis true 


256 


APPENDIX. 


that in the letter he wrote the queen he grounds a complaint 
on two points, one is, that her majesty trusts him not with 
so much authority, nor is at such pains to advance him and 
make him he honoured in the nation, as she at first did : and 
the other point is that nobody attends him, and that the 
nobility deserts his company. To those two points the queen 
has made answer, that if the case be so, he ought to blame 
himself, not her ; for that in the beginning she had conferred 
so much honour upon him, as came afterwards to render her¬ 
self very uneasy, the credit and reputation wherein she had 
placed him having served as a shadow to those who have 
most heinously offended her majesty ; but howsoever, that she 
has, notwithstanding this, continued to show him such re¬ 
spect, that altho’ they who did perpetrate the murder of her 
faithful servant had entred her chamber with his knowledge, 
having followed him close at the back, and had named him 
the chief of their enterprize, yet would she never accuse 
him thereof, but did always excuse him, and was willing to 
appear as if she believed it not. And then as to his being 
not attended, the fault thereof must be charged upon himself, 
since she has always made an offer to him of her own 
servants. And for the nobility, they come to court and pay 
deference and respect according as they have any matters to 
do, and as they receive a kindly countenance : But that he 
is at no pains to gain them, and make himself beloved by 
them, having gone so far as to proliibite these noblemen to 
enter his room who she had at first appointed to be about his 
person : if the nobility abandon him, his own deportment 
towards them is the cause thereof; for if he desires to be 
followed and attended by them, he must in the first place 
make them to love him; and to this purpose, must render 
himself amiable to them ; without which it will prove a most 
difficult task for her majesty to regulate this point, especially 


APPENDIX. 


257 


to make the nobility consent that he shall have the manage¬ 
ment of affairs put into his hands; because she finds them 
utterly averse to any such matter. 

2 . 

LETTEK by De Croc, the French Ambassador, to Catherine 
de Medicis, Queen-Mother of France, dated Jedburgh, 
17th October 1566.—(Found by Count Labanoff in the 
Eoyal Library at Paris, MS. de Harlay, No. 218.) 

( Extracts .) 

“ Great preparations are making for the baptism, and the 
Lords here are putting themselves in grand order in contem¬ 
plation of performing their devoir well and suitably on that 
occasion, those of that religion as well as the Catholics. And 
I must tell you that both the Lords and those who are in 
correspondence with the King and your Majesty, are so well 
reconciled together with the Queen, through her wise conduct, 
that now I cannot perceive a single division. 

“ But if the Queen and these Lords are well together, the 
King her husband is as ill, both with the one side and the 
other ; nor can it be otherwise, according to the manner in 
which he deports himself, for he wants to be all in all, and 
chief governor of everything ; and so he puts himself in the 
way of being nothing. 

“ He often bewails himself to me; and one day I told 
him ‘ that if he would do me the honour of informing me 
what it was he complained of in the Queen and the nobles, I 
would take the liberty of mentioning it to them/ He said, 
as he has often done, that he ‘ wished to return to the same 
state he was in when first married/ I assured him * he could 
never return to that; and if he had found himself well off 

8 


2 5 8 


APPENDIX. 


then, it behoved him to have kept so ; that he must perceive 
that the Queen having been outraged in her person, could 
never reinstate him in the authority he had before ; and that 
he ought to be very well contented with the honours and 
benefits she gave him in treating and honouring him as King- 
consort, and supplying him and his household very liberally 
with all things requisite.’ ” 

“ The Queen, your daughter-in-law, returns from Stirling 
to Edinburgh for an assembly which meets there every year 
at the time of the vacations, which are from the month of 
August until Martinmas, to which the Lords and Estates of 
the realm are called, to consider her Majesty’s affairs. The 
King was living at Stirling, where the Earl of Lennox, his 
father, found him, and after having spoken to him, the Earl 
retired to Glasgow, which is his ordinary residence. He 
wrote to the Queen that he had found the King thinking of 
going abroad, and that he had a ship ready for the purpose, and 
that he had not succeeded in dissuading him. He prayed 
her Majesty to do what she could about it. The Queen re¬ 
ceived the letter on Michaelmas morning. The King arrived 
the same evening at ten o’clock. Their Majesties being to¬ 
gether, the Queen spoke to him on this subject, praying him 
to tell her the cause of his going away, and if he had any 
complaint against her. He did not wish to say anything 
about it to her; and the Queen, considering of how much 
importance his voyage was, resolved, very wisely and advis¬ 
edly, to send at once for all the Lords and others of her 
Council, and also to command my attendance. When we 
were all assembled, the Bishop of Eoss, by the Queen’s desire, 
mentioned the King’s voyage in his presence, and that the 
evidence the Queen had of it was a letter which the Earl of 
Lennox had written to her on the subject. The letter was 
read. The Queen made a very beautiful address, and after- 


APPENDIX. 


259 


wards prayed and entreated him with all her power to declare 
in the presence of all if she had given him any occasion. 
She prayed him for the love of God, and with joined hands, 
not to spare her. 

“ The Lords also said to him that they saw easily that he 
looked ill upon them, that they did not know if they were 
the cause of his going, and they prayed him to tell them how 
they had offended him ? Lor my part I said that his voyage 
concerned the honour of both the Queen and himself; that if 
he went with cause this touched the Queen; if he went 
otherwise it could not be praiseworthy. He left us only one 
conclusion, for he declared at last that he had no occasion 
whatever. The Queen said that she was content, and we all 
cried to her that she ought to be content. I added that ac¬ 
cording to my function, I would witness everywhere to the 
truth of what I had seen and what I should see. Thus he, 
without cause, as he declared, and in vexation, bade adieu to 
the Queen, without kissing her, telling her that her Majesty 
should not see him for a long time. Thus we remained near 
the Queen, your daughter-in-law, doing our best to console 
her, and praying her to continue in wisdom and virtue, and 
not to distress nor grieve herself, for that the truth should be 
well known everywhere. 

“ In about three or four days the Queen was informed 
that he for certain continued his embarkation, and had a ship 
all ready. 

“ Her Majesty has come into this town of Jedburgh, 
which is on the English frontier, where her presence was 
much required this long time, to distribute justice, and she 
expects to remain about ten or twelve days. 

“ I was staying in Edinburgh. The King sent to beg me to 
meet him nine miles from Edinburgh, where he came with 
his father. I saw well that he did not know the position he 


260 


APPENDIX. 


is in. He wished the Queen to recall him. I told him that 
since he had gone off without cause, as he had declared, I did 
not wish to doubt the Queen’s goodness, but that many a 
wife would not send to ask after him. I believe that he wishes, 
as far as I can understand him, to temporise till after the 
baptism, since he has made nothing of it; for, in my opinion, 
there are only two things which provoke him : the first is the 
reconciliation of the Lords with the Queen—at least he is 
afraid they will show more respect to her Majesty than to 
him, and he is so haughty and proud he would not like 
foreigners to know it; and the other is, that he is convinced 
that whoever comes to the baptism for the Queen of Eng¬ 
land will not recognise him. He is much afraid of receiving 
an affront. If he were well advised and counselled not to 
meddle more than he should, he would not be in the distress 
in which he is. 

“ The Queen, your daughter-in-law, when coming to this 
town of Jedburgh, sent the Earl of Both well before, because 
he is Lieutenant-General of this border, and in making a 
swoop on the thieves he was badly wounded, but he is out 
of danger, which the Queen is very glad of—he would be no 
small loss to her. Lethington has been restored for about 
three weeks.” 1 


Translated from the original letter in LabanofF, i. 374. 


APPENDIX. 


261 


No. XVII. 

EXTRACTS from a curious and almost illegible Old Manu¬ 
script in the British Museum, supposed to be in Archibald 
Douglas’ handwriting, containing a Recital of Murray’s 
schemes and conduct down to Mary’s escape from Loch- 
leven.—(British Museum, Cotton MS., Caligula, B. viii. 
129.) 

My lord of Morray Wy 1 advis of his secret consell [on 
pretence?] 1 of ye setting furth of ye word of God .... 
was ay to usurp ye Crowin and to place hymself in ye rowim 
of ye octorate [authority] and to bring hym to y t effek yat drew 
duk Hamilton [illegible] and yairafter causit ane zoung ino- 
sent man ye king to consent to consper ye slaughter of David 
in presens of ye quenes majeste, haifing na respek to ye suk- 
sessyoun of yis realme of Scotland being in hir graces wame 
at yat present, thinking would at syk tarrabill slauchter in 
hir graces presense suld haif gifin hir grace ocasyoun to liaif 
departit wyt yis said suksessyoun [then] in hir graces wame, 
and seing yat interprys tuk no* effek dewyset yairafter ye 
slauchter of ye said king, and laid ye brut and doing of ye 
said slauchter upon ye quenes magistee, and after yat causit 
syk brut to pass throw ye comon peipill, maid insureksyoun 
contraire hir grace, aleging yair quarrel was to punys ye kingis 
slauchter, under collour of your forsaid pretens quhill sik 
tyme yai attaint hir graces person in captewite and ward, 
compellit hir grace for feer of her lyf to resing [resign] and 
demit hir graces crown and actorate in ye handis of hir graces 
sone, and my Lord of Morray to be regent xvij yeris, and yer- 
after convenit ane fenyeit parlament To ratefe and approf of 
1 Torn here. 


262 


APPENDIX . 


yere forsaid ungodlie prosedinges, and shew fenyeit [feigned] 
writingis in ye said parlament maikin ye haill comon pepill to 
beleif and wnderstand yat ye quenes mageste was no* worde 
[worthy] to rynge as prens [prince] & some raite [write ?] on 
yame, quhilk was ane gret ocasyonn to mvif [move] ye comon 
pepile to beleif ye sam, becaus hir grace vas no 1 suferit to 
cowm in presens of hir graces nobelete to justifie hir graces 
awne cause.—And becaus god vod no t sufer yeir ungodlie 
enterprys and prosedynges to tak effek, bot will haif y e trutht 
tryit and warate [right?] declarit, and for warafeing [veri¬ 
fying] of ye same at his pleasur his almyty godhead of his 
gret infinit power by ye inspeksyoun of men to relief ye 
quenes magestie our soverain furth of captiwete and ward to 
be yat instrument under God to declair to hir graces trew 
subgekis ye trutht and warate in all causis, and in quhat 
maner hir grace has bene usit and handlit wy* ane perticuler 
company of hir graces untrew inobedient subgekes, and now 
hir grace being at liberte and fredome has declarit hir graces 
mynd in all causis to hir graces nobilite and consell quhilk 
declarasyons will be maid mair publick to all her graces trew 
obedient subgekis. 

Finis quod Maister Jamis Balfour 

quha sold ye castell in ane ill hour. 


In dorso —Ane declaration of my Lord of Murraye. 


APPENDIX. 


2 63 


No. XVIII. 

1 . 


The Names of such as are to be entertayned in Scotland by 
Pencions out of England.—(From original in British 
Museum, Caligula, c. y.) 


The Begent 
Thearle of Angush 
Thearle of Atholl 
Thearle of Argile 
T Thearle of Montrosse . 
"" Thearle of Bothosse . 
7r x Thearle of Clinkarn 
(Glencaim) 

T x The Countesse of Marre 
The M r of Askyn 
(Erskine) 

The L. Glames . 

The L. Buthin . 

The L. Lindsay . 

The L. Boyd 
The L. Harris (Herries) 
x The L. Maxwell 
T x The L. Loughleuin 
The L. Boldukell 
The L. of Domwrassell 
(Drumwhassel) 

The L. of Ormeston . 
James M‘gell 
Buckannon 
Nicholas Eluiston 
Peter Younge scholem r 
Alexander Hay . 
Carmichell 


£ 

500 

100 

200 

200 

100 

100 


E Moreton. 

E E. Bothos daughter. 

A Fleminge Grand Prieurs Sister. 

The E. Marshalls daughter. 

A Dromond daug. 

E Buthis sister. Mefens wife. 


100 

200 


Tillibumes sister. 


150 

100 

100 

100 

100 

100 

100 

50 

50 


Humes sister. 

E 

A L. Mefens sister. 

L. Lochleuins sister. 

M r 

M r 

M r E. of Anguish sister. 

E T 2000. 


100 

50 

100 

100 

50 

30 

40 


L. Cawdens daughter. 

M r 

M r 


2653 1 * 






264 


APPENDIX. 


2 . 

LETTER, Killigrew to Lord Burghley, as to how Eliza¬ 
beth might “ oversee” the Murders (of Darnley, Murray, 
etc.), and the persons in Scotland “ to be considered with 
Pensions,” 14th March 1573.—(From original in State 
Paper Office, Scotland, Elizabeth, vol. xxiv. art 50.) 

* * * * 

the too poyntes of y r Ire w ci I leyfte unaunswered before, to 
wytt how her M te might over se the morthers, and what pen¬ 
sion w th the least might he bestowed here. 

* * * * 

the first Regent had the contryver of his death the bischope 
of St. Andw s hanged and the doers be yet excepted. 

* * * % 

Touching the Pensions Theise be the men to be considered 
of,—the Regent, therles of Hontley and Argyle, the L. Boyd, 
who is able to kepe Argyle in tune and beareth a great stroke 
in the west, Sir James Bolfoure and alexandre hay. the som to 
content them and to kepe them and this Contry at her Ma tes 
devotion is after my calculation 1200 h sterling by the yere. 
Whereof 500 h for the Regent, 200 for hontley, 200 for Argyle, 
100 for the lord Boyd, and 100 for Adam of Gordon, whom I 
forgatt before, the other 100 betwyne Sir James Balfoure and 
Sandy hay, to wytt 100 mark sterling to Sir James, who wold 
in my pore jugment deserve the same, and the 50 marke to 
thother who also wyll deserve no lesse. As for the Castylliance 1 
I can say nothing. If her M te wyll bestow but 1000 H ster¬ 
ling, then Adam of Gordon Sir James Balfoure and hay must 

1 Kirkcaldy of Grange and Lethington, who had seized and kept 
the castle of Edinburgh. 


APPENDIX. 


265 


be leyft out. I have felt my L. of Argyle, who wyll accept 
200 li of her M te if it shall please her to bestow yt, and yet I 
am sure he may have 2000 A of Trance at this present, and 
hontley atholl and others as myche. ye I know the Eegent 
hemselfe hathe bin delt w th even by my lord Heton, but if 
her M te wyll take the tyme and thoccasion I am sure france 
shall fayle of ther porpose, contrary onlesse they may se her 
Ma te consentand to ron a good course for her selfe and her 
neighbours I doubt me the Kegent wyll not wade so farr. 

* * * * 


No. XIX. 

EVIDENCE of the Earls of Huntly and Argyle touching 
the Murder of the King of Scots.—(British Museum.) 

{Extract) 

In the zeir of God 1566 zeiris, in the moneth of December 
or thairby, efter hir Ilienes’s greit and extreme seikness, and 
retourning from Jedwart, hir Grace being in the castel of 
Craigmillar accompanyit be us above written, and be the 
Erlis of Bothwell, Murray and secretaire Lethingtoun ; the 
said Erie of Murray and Lethingtoun came in the chamber 
of us the Erie of Ergile in the morning, we being in our bed ; 
quha “lamenting the banishment of the Erie of Mortoun, 
Lordis Lyndsay and Kowen (Buthven), with the rest of thair 
factioun, said, That the occasioun of the murthour of David, 
slane be thame in presence of the Quene’s Majestie, was for 
to troubill and impesche the parliament, quhairin the Erie 
of Murray and utheris sould have bene foirfaltit and declarit 
rebellis. And seing that the samin was cheiflie for the weil- 
fare of the Erie of Murray, it sould be estemit ingratitude gif 
he and his freindis, in reciproque manner, did not enterpryse 


266 


APPENDIX. 


all that wer [in thair] puissance for releif of the saidis ban- 
ishit; quhairfoir thay thocht, that we, of our part, sould have 
bene as desyrous thairto as thay wer.” 

And we agreing to the same, to do all that was in us for 
thair releif, provyding that the Quene’s Majestie sould not be 
offendit thairat: On this Lethingtoun proponit and said, 
“ That the narrest and best way till obtene the said Erie of 
Mortoun’s pardoun, was to promise to the Quene’s Majestie 
to find ane moyen (means) to mak devorcement betwixt hir 
Grace and the king hir husband quha had offendit hir 
Hieness sa hielie in mony wayes.” 

Quhairunto we answering, That we knew not how that 
myght be done ; Lethingtoun said, the Erie of Murray being 
ever present, “ My Lord, cair zou not thairof. We sail fynd 
the meane weill aneuch to mak hir quite of him, swa that 
ze and my Lord of Huntlie will onlie behald the matter, and 
not be offendit thairat.” 

And then thay send to my Lord of Huntlie, praying him 
to cum to our chalmer. 

This is as thay dealit with us particularlie. How lat us 
shaw quhat followit efter that we wer assemblit. We Erie of 
Huntlie being in the said chalmer, the saidis Erie of Murray 
and Lethingtoun oppinit the matter lykwise to us in manner 
foirsaid, promising, if we wald consent to the samin, that thay 
sould fynd the mean to restoir us in our awin landis and 
offices, and thay to stand guid friendis unto us and cause the 
said Erie of Mortoun, Rowen, and all the rest of that cum- 
panie, to do the like in time cuming. Our answer was, it 
sould not stop be us that the matter cum not to effect, in all 
that myght be proffitfull and honorabill baith for thame and 
us, and specialle quhair the pleasour weill and contentment 
of the Quene’s Majestie consistit. And thairon we four, viz. 
Erlis of Huntlie, Ergile, Murray, and secretaire Lethingtoun 


APPENDIX. 


267 


past all to the Erie of Bothwell’s chalmer, to understand his 
advise on thir thingis proponit; quhairin he ganesaid not 
mair than we. 

Swa thairefter we past altogidder towardis the Quene’s 
Grace ; quhair Lethingtoun, efter he had rememberit hir Ma- 
jestie of ane greit nomhre of grevious and intollerahell offences 
that the King, as he said, ingrait of the honour ressavit of hir 
Hienes, had done to hir Grace, and continewing everie day 
from evil to worse ; proponit, “ That gif it pleisit herMajestie 
to pardoun the Earl of Mortoun, Lordis Bowen, and Lyndsay 
with thair cumpanie, thay sould fynd the meanis with the 
rest of the nobilitie, to mak divorcement betwixt hir Hienes 
and the King hir husband, quhilk sould not neid hir Grace 
to mell thairwith. To the quhilk it was necessare, that hir 
Majestie tak heid to mak resolutioun thairin, als weill for hir 
awin easement als weill of the realme; for he troublit hir 
Grace and us all, and remaining with hir Majestie wald not 
ceis till he did hir sum uther evil turn, quhen that her Hienes 
wald be mekil impeschit to put remeid thairto ” 

Efter thir persuasions and utheris divers, quhilk the said 
Lethingtoun usit by [besides] those that everie ane of us schew 
particularlie to hir Majestie to bring hir to the said purpois ; 
hir Grace answerit, “ That under twa conditionnis scho myght 
understand the samin; the ane, that the divorcement wer 
maid lauchfullie ; the uthir that it war not prejudice to hir 
sone ; utherwayis hir Hienes wold rather endure all tormen- 
tis ; and abyde the perrellis that myght chaunce hir in hir 
Grace’s lyftyme ” The Erie of Bothwell answerit, “ That he 
doubtit not bot the divorcement myght be maid but [without] 
prejudice in ony wayis of my Lord Princealledging the 
exam pill of himself, that he ceissit not to succeid to his 
father’s heritage without any difficultie, albeit thair was 
divorce betwixt him and his mother. 


268 


APPENDIX. 


It was alswa proponit, that efter thair divorcement the 
King sould be him allane [by himself] in ane part of the 
countrey and the Quene’s Majestie in an uther, or ellis he 
should reteir him in ane uther realme ; and heiron hir Majes¬ 
tie said, “ That peradventure he wald change opinioun, and 
that it were better that scho hir self for ane tymepassit in France, 
abyding till he acknowledgit himself, Then Lethingtoun tak¬ 
ing the speache, said, “ Madame, Fancie ze not we ar heir of 
the principal of zour Grace’s nobilitie and counsal, that sail 
fynd the moyen [means] that zour Majestie sail be quyte 
[quit] of him without prejudice of zour sone. And albeit 
that my Lord of Murray heir present be lyttil les scrupulous 
for ane Protestant, nor zour Grace is for ane Papist , I am 
assurit he will luik throw his fingers thair to, and will behold 
our doingis saying nathing to the samin .” The Quene’s Ma¬ 
jestie answerit, “ I will that ze do nathing quhairthro 

ONY SPOT MAY BE LAYIT TO MY HONOR OR CONSCIENCE, and 
thairfor I pray zou rather let the matter be in the estait 
AS IT IS, ABYDING TILL GOD OF HIS GUIDNESS PUT REMEID 
thairto ; that ze beleifing to do me service may possibill 
turn to my hurt and despleasour.” “ Madame (said Lething¬ 
toun), “ lat us guyde the matter amangis us, and zour Grace 
sail se nathing but guid, and approvit be parliament.” 1 


The EAEL of MUEEAY’S ANSWEE, pasted on the back 
of the foregoing. 

{Extract) 

Because the custume of my adversaris is, and has bene 
rather to calumpniat and backbite me in my absence than be- 
foir my face; and that it may happen thame, quhen I am 
1 Goodall, ii. 317. 


APPENDIX, 


269 


departit furth of this realme, sclanderouslie and nntrewlie to 
report untreuthis of me, and namelie towardis sum spechis 
haldin in my hearing at Craigmillar in the moneth of Novem¬ 
ber 1566,1 have alreaddie declarit to the Quene’s Majestie the 
effect of the haill purposis spokin in my audience at the samin 
tyme, sincerelie and trewlie as I will answer to Almychtie 
God, unconceilling ony part to my remembrance, as hir Hienes 
I traist will report. And farther in cais ony man will say and 
affirm that ever I was present quhen ony purposis wer haldin 
at Craigmillar in my audience, tending to ony unlauchful or 
dishonorabill end, or that ever I subscrivit ony band there, or 
that ony purpois was haldin anent the subscriving of ony 
band be me, to my knawledge, I avow thay speik wickitlie 
and untrewlie, quhilk I will mantene aganis thame, as be- 
cumis ane honest man, to the end of my lyfe; onlie this far 
the subscriptioun of bandis by me is trew. That indeed I 
subscrivit ane band with the Erlis of Huntlie, Ergile, and 
Both well in Edinburgh at the beginning of October the samin 
zeir 1566, quhilk wes devysitin signe of our reconciliatioune 
in respect of the former grudges and despleasouris that had 
bene amangis us. 1 


No. XX. 

LETTER, the Master of Gray to Sir Francis Walsingham, 
17th May 1586.—(State Paper Office, Scotland, vol. xxxix. 
No. 85.) 

Mr Arch d Douglas shalbe God willing varie schortly put 
to a try all—for the K. (King) since my last haithe condi- 
scendit to all thinges, and Thay qwho of befoir opposit them- 
selvis are now content of freindschipe. I pray you, albeit y e 
1 Goodall, ii. 321. 


270 


APPENDIX. 


matter be not gryt, yt if the 1000£ can be haid yt it be, for I 
haid aneuche to do for to cause y e K. resave it, and sume 
directly opposit them selfis and was glaid to have occasion— 
Bot it shall not be neidfull hir mat ie know so mutche—I 
leave you sir in Godis holy protection. 

From our Court y e 17 of May. 

Note .—This letter is dated nine days before Douglas’s 
trial, and the writer of it, the Master of Gray, was foreman of 
the jury at the trial. 


XXI. 

EXTRACTS from MARY STUARTS WILL—1566. She 
leaves twenty-six bequests to her husband the King, among 
others, "A diamond ring, enamelled in red;” opposite 
to which she writes, in her own hand—Cest celui de quoy 
je fus espousee—Au roi qui la mie donne ( Inventories , 
Preface 33). She also leaves a diamond to his father, 
and two to his mother. 

A madame de Boduel. Une couiffe garnye de rubiz perles 
et grenatz. 

Ung collit aussy garny (do.) 

Une paire de manehes garnies de 
rubiz perles et grenatz. 

A mon frere de Mora. Ung diamant en pointe sans feuile. 

Au Conte de Mar. Une table de moyse avec deux 
diamans. 


Au Conte Boduel. 


Une table de diamant emaille en noir. 


APPENDIX, 


271 


Au quatre Maries. 

Quatre autres petis diamant de di¬ 
verse fa 9 on. 

Au Conte d’Arguilles. 

Ung ruby, &c. 

Au Conte Hontelay. 

Ung ruby, &c. 

Au Conte d’Atol. 

Une table de ruby, &c. 

Au ma soeur. 

Une ruby, &c. 


Printed, by R. Clark, Edinburgh. 


























































































» 











« 


























♦ 
















a 






















































♦ 







ft 






< 




* 






















« 











ft 


/ 


♦ 


































1 













» 


✓ 



























. 


♦ 










* 




























z°< 



0 






„ -w- * N' 

-b > , I i*' .# '* o N o’’ <6 } C b t » " MM 

'%> v N > .<3* »’<*«, "' V '»*••»* 

,v * ■%. .Wa> ,v 

” ”■ *^acsm - V ^ 

-y’<*. '•,!».■ x^ v 'V ”Wl O <j. o 
> -x- *• * ^ %^SSS? * a v * 

/ o \ * o\ o, ^ / s s <o <* % 0 ^ 

<- ^ C 0 N c * * * (V * v 1 * * "<*> ■ s \\ 

> « ^vx <“ ~o 0° v v /k>^ -t 'p <y> 





s" ^ rv 
rfr- -/■ <* fW 

, *>. 4 o ,o’ O' 

<" A^> t- 




c 


✓ " ’ Jb 

“ * ‘ * A' A c ° " ' * ' J * * ' " 0 ^ . I 1 • t ’ ° * ’■• Z o 

A 1 * 0 ,*§$wO ° . c * ,„•* * 

*• > ”• <1 y o0' * ISiTm^ -* V o 

y 

o, | 




I ■ „, ^ ^ ^ 

<*• '-Zy// V/W -r. \ V *^f. 

/ s * 1 


it ☆ 


c,^ o £///w\\\r av </> , 

Q V ^VJ^XF^ cp -* 

•N . » *5 » V, _.. 

s s ,~$C> < y o * \ * .A - -o '* 7^ ^ 

0> v* V ‘ * * * '**> ^ C 0 N c ♦ 11 * S rs^ ,lH„ 

0 .X ^ ^ ^ o 0 y ^ 

<X 






A >? 


—S °0 

C b ’ " ' r x^ Of ""cb % -JXT- * 0 v 

, ; \?S*”T ^ Y *0 

/X 1 ^ nV ->> < 0 ^ 

r(\\S8//)7 o cT* ,\y ^^rllill^^ * ' at 

<<? ^ oa t/> \v ^ 

* ^ v % w; / % iw ^ % * 

~ 4 % v * *' v°. •' ■ * /< ° * 1 c - •. • *' 



( . 0 

'*^ o:>, V x v 

5? * 



^ v" 


& / , NX VS° <r A 

^ ^ .0 s 0 ’ o0‘ 



o tP^ 




<<r 

c? 

O 0.^ 

* .# 

% 

o 


tt it 





l-f ^ ^Cvs ^ C> 

^ .y y 

* o 0 N 

’ N x' xV ^ ^ 

P\*^ Cj_ ^ 4 ^ \ ^.* cis 't 

0 N ° ° f ^ *!'<jV 81 " a n °^°’* v 

^ 40 \ \ 

Z»*. : '" '■ 

^ % % 


















^ * 

' »>.'* 0 | 

V *'V*> ' A- * 

K WW ✓ 4 * * 

- % c,V 






%. 'll>’ f ^M, ^ 

■> *»,V > 

r* 


r *> 'VC. ^ ^ '* w >> t * * 0 V 

> .«? - * « &> A & +/*&&** \ V 

, .(\ S n . * /\ O ** 1 t S A> 

c?*y\i:~ , *\ “ 

v * dt?/r,Xs-? + , Oj x 

«t»? ^ ° ’ 

>>* -.To /,, ..Sc * ■ ■ 

' r &'i r * SSSXF&//SI -* <** V 




A* 




-er~»- •» 

< 4 0 . X * .A 

^ ^ . c 
*. ^ ^ .'«? 




>- ^ 
* 


c^ ^ A ^^ 5 ~*^ * rp Op ^ 

A 4 ^ 


aV </> -i ' 

A> V * 

»■* a *3 '*rr,' y*- 

A 0 * 0 „ * * S A v> 1 fl x. 



c 

\ F x 3 °<* *' 

/y V % 5 * 0 " V°\ < * 0 ,°°V^^V^s s ’ * a * 0 * 

^ *** ^ ^ . 

c5> ^ o <$> 

* Av n ^v^viuiiuii^r^ v> > X/^8$L\K *■ 'V ,>>> * ^ 

* A * „ %. * i ., X ■£> 1 i. i < a'' ,, \''.."«,V 

A \ r O NC /» * o f\ v . * V ^ ^ *5% c v O' /* 

^ c t C> Cj v V -,/rT^^ * v^ * crv^v X. , ° Cj 

u “ ^ yr/5 ^- ^ ^ ^ 



•^. .c 
V 


A* 


V </> 

1 f/>, ^ 






^ '«x V 

<, O 0 X 




^ * 0 s 


& - 
** ^ 



y> 


0 ^ </> 


r * <?' ,S 

t ^ «* 


* C^ Ar 

^ • \ O, x ' / s s , » ’C y o * x 

P x r 0 v s fl 1 

^ k ^ N AUl ^ - ^ u *A-y 
















